Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 for April 15, 2008

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 5935-6095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 5935]]

VOLUME 154--PART 5

SENATE--Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, we come to You in weakness and seek Your strength.
Without Your presence, life's challenges overwhelm. Lift our burdens
and fill our life with Your joy.
Strengthen our lawmakers. Use their talents and abilities to make a
positive difference in our world. Empower them with Your providential
care to find creative paths that will bring this Nation to a desired
destination. Inspire their minds with insight and wisdom, their hearts
with resiliency and courage, and their bodies with vigor and vitality.
May your peace flow into them, calming their spirits, directing their
dispositions, and controlling all they say and do.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Jon Tester 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, April 15, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable Jon
Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana, to perform the
duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

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

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

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

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of Senator
McConnell, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1
hour, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each,
with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be given to the
Republicans and the final 30 minutes to the majority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following that time, the Senate will resume
consideration of H.R. 1195.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15
p.m. today to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER

THE ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

____________________

POPE BENEDICT XVI'S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week we welcome his Holiness, Pope
Benedict XVI, for his first visit to America as Pope.
Here in Washington, Pope Benedict will meet the President at the
White House, marking only the second time in America's history that a
pontiff has visited the White House. He will offer Mass at the newly
opened Nationals Park, and deliver an address at Catholic University.
Pope Benedict will then travel to New York, where he will address the
United Nations, visit Ground Zero, site of the devastating 9/11
terrorist attacks, and say Mass at Yankee Stadium.
During his visit, the Pope will also champion a brotherhood of faith
between the religions, by meeting with leaders from the Buddhist,
Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and other faiths.
The Pope's visit observes some important anniversaries. Wednesday,
April 16, will be his 81st birthday, and Saturday, the 19th, will mark
the third anniversary of his election as Pope.
His visit also coincides with the 200th anniversary of four of the
oldest dioceses in the United States, one of which was established in
my own State of Kentucky. Two hundred years ago this month, Pope Pius
VII carved the Diocese of Bardstown from one of the oldest dioceses in
the New World.
The territory of the Bardstown Diocese once covered a giant swath of
land, including what are now the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and half of
Arkansas.
The Bardstown Diocese was established alongside the dioceses of
Boston, Philadelphia, and New York. Its seat was eventually moved to
Louisville, KY, and made an archdiocese. But its place in the history
of American Catholicism continues to be a point of pride across
Kentucky.
Kentuckians celebrate this bicentennial throughout the year at the
St. Thomas Church, considered the ``Cradle of Catholicism'' in the
Bluegrass State and still located in Bardstown. A two-story log house
that stands on St. Thomas' property is the oldest structure related to
the Catholic faith in our region of the United States.
Built in 1795 by Thomas and Ann Howard, the property was willed to
the church by Mr. Howard in 1810, and it became the first home of the
St. Thomas Seminary, the first seminary west of

[[Page 5936]]

the Alleghenies. It later served as the residence of Bishop Benedict
Joseph Flaget, first bishop of the Bardstown Diocese.
Bishop Flaget and others who worked to establish the Bardstown
Diocese were pioneers of the land as well as of the spirit. Kentucky
was the western frontier of the young United States at that time, and
frontier life posed many hardships.
Yet Bishop Flaget successfully made his work and presence felt
throughout the diocese, and the St. Thomas Church still cites his
influence today, two centuries later.
The resolve and faith displayed by the founders of that Bardstown
Diocese are the same resolve and faith that have enabled so many other
Catholic missionaries to attract more than 1 billion adherents to the
Catholic faith.
As the Bishop of Rome, the Pope's leadership inspires millions with
confidence that mankind can find God's will amidst the chaos of this
world.
Yet, for all the obvious affection people show him, Pope Benedict
would be the first to recognize that he is merely ``a simple, humble
laborer in the vineyard of the Lord.''
We are honored by his visit. And in Bardstown, Washington or
elsewhere, we welcome Pope Benedict VXI to bring his labors to America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________

PAPAL VISIT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow the President has invited a number
of people to the White House to greet the Pope on the south lawn. That
will be at 10 o'clock in the morning. We are going to be in session and
have a regular session tomorrow. We will make sure there are no votes
between 10 and 11.
On Thursday, for the Mass, for those Members of the Catholic faith,
and others who wish to attend the Mass at the baseball stadium, we are
not going to come in until 12:45. That will allow people to go to the
Mass and give them time to come to the Capitol. We will start
legislating at 12:45 on Thursday. Hopefully, we will complete some
legislation at that time. Hopefully, we will be on the technical
corrections bill or another piece of legislation.

____________________

JACKIE ROBINSON

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color
barrier on this day in 1947. He immediately made his mark on the field
and off the field, winning the Rookie of the Year Award in 1947 and
suffering painful indignities from fans and opposing players with both
patience and grace.
As a young man growing up in Louisville, I always took pride in the
fact that Pee Wee Reese, a graduate of my high school, had become a
Major Leaguer and even the captain of his team, the Brooklyn Dodgers.
But I was even more proud of the fact that Pee Wee walked over to
Jackie one day when the taunts were especially tough, put his arm on
Jackie's back, and sent a message to the fans that Jackie Robinson was
no different than anyone else they came to root for that day.
Reflecting on Jackie's courage, a baseball commentator said this week
that it is remarkable to note that in all the photographs from those
years, Jackie always seemed to be smiling, despite the jeers and taunts
and the hatred.
We honor Jackie Robinson today for his courage and his example and
for accelerating the march toward equality for all Americans.

____________________

TAX DAY

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, most Americans view April 15 as a sort
of national anti-holiday, when they are forced to take a hard look at
how much of their money goes into a Washington spending machine instead
of their childrens' education or their gas tank.
It is worth noting that most people don't dread tax day as much as
they used to; as much as they did before Republican policies
significantly reduced the share of the family budget that goes from
taxpayer wallets to the Treasury Department.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 43 percent of middle income
earners say they are paying too much in taxes--43 percent, but still
far fewer than the 59 percent who thought they were being overtaxed 7
years ago.
The reason for the drop-off isn't too hard to figure out: The reason
a lot fewer people think their tax burden is too high is that their tax
burden is a lot lower than it was 6 years ago.
Married couples and families with children have benefited from tax
credits, tens of millions of Americans have benefited from tax cuts on
dividends and capital gains, including more than 250,000 people in
Kentucky.
And that is why it's critical that middle class Americans understand
the path that Democrats are headed down.
At a time when the economy is slowing and Americans are paying record
prices for food, gas, and healthcare, our Democrat friends are
preparing the largest tax hike in U.S. history--nearly three times
larger than the previous record.
We saw the plan last month in a budget that only one Democrat in the
Senate voted against, a blueprint that raises taxes on middle class
families by $2,300 a year.
Our friends won't admit this is a tax hike; they won't say they're
raising taxes; they plan to do it quietly, by letting all the recently
enacted tax cuts and credits that Americans have benefited from over
the past several years expire.
If you ask about it, they will tell you these tax cuts were only for
the rich anyway.
Don't listen to them--unless, of course, you think 43 million
American families with children who will pay thousands more in taxes
under the Democrat budget are rich, and should be taxed more; or that
all 18 million seniors who will pay thousands more in taxes under the
Democrat budget are rich and should be taxed more; or that every owner
of the 27 million small businesses in the U.S. who will have to pay
$4,100 more in taxes under the Democrat budget are rich and should be
taxed more.
Under the budget that every Democrat in the Senate but one voted for
last month, taxes will go up on anyone who makes more than $34,000. Are
these people rich? Should they pay more in taxes?
The first-year teacher in Louisville who makes $35,982--is he or she
rich? Does he or she need to be taxed more? I will bet they don't think
so.
How about the veteran teacher with a Ph.D. who maxes out at $73,418--
is he or she rich? Does he or she need to be taxed more? I will bet
they don't think so.
Our Democrat friends have their own answer to these questions: they
voted for an amendment last month that extends tax breaks on married
couples and children.
The problem, of course, is that they voted for a similar amendment
last year, and then they didn't do a thing about it. They had no
intention of making it into law.
So if past experience is any indication of future events, our friends
won't act on the amendment this year either. They cast a vote that's
intended to appeal to working families, but their record shows they
won't follow through by actually doing anything about it.
As Americans struggle to pay the bills and millions worry about
falling home values and whether they will even be able to keep their
homes, they should be able to expect more from Congress than political
cover votes and class warfare rhetoric.
All the recently enacted tax cuts will soon expire. These cuts have
helped tens of millions of American families and seniors. These folks
should know what is coming. And Democrats in Washington should relent
on their plans to return to the bad old days when 60 percent of them
thought their tax bills were too high.
That is the road our friends on the other side are taking us down.
They have shown us the blueprint. It certainly was not written with
working families in mind.
I yield the floor.

[[Page 5937]]

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the
majority controlling the final half.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

____________________

TAX DAY

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today millions of Americans are reminded
about Ben Franklin's poignant observation: Nothing is certain but death
and taxes.
Today families across the Nation are being forced to tighten their
belts as the Federal Government takes more and more of their hard-
earned money. For working families, the tax bill that comes due every
April 15 is often a tremendous burden. In fact, the average American
pays more in taxes than it spends on food, shelter, clothing, and
transportation combined.
For American families, tax day is a real eye opener. This year,
families will work the first 113 days of the year to pay their Federal,
State, and local taxes. Unfortunately, this year tax day has come
around when families are facing spiking energy, housing, and health
care costs, runaway college tuition, and high rising prices for
consumer goods.
While the Senate has acted to help these families in the short term,
the stimulus and housing relief bills, a long-term fix is a long way
off and badly needed. We should support long-term economic growth
policies that lower taxes, create more jobs, and grow our American
economy.
Our distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, has outlined the dangers of going back to a high-tax era. We
all know that the tax reductions adopted by Congress in 2003 which gave
relief for capital gains taxes encouraged more small businesses to
invest, gave them the resources to grow, and small businesses are the
dynamic engine of this country.
That tax relief provided some 8.4 million new jobs. But as Senator
McConnell said, my friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed
a budget that includes the largest tax increase in American history and
would raise taxes on every American taxpayer by doing nothing,
intentionally doing nothing.
The plan of the Democrats raises taxes on the average American family
by $2,300 a year. A $2,300 increase in taxes will be a devastating hit
to American families. For families in Missouri and across the Nation,
this is $2,300 they will no longer be able to use to buy groceries, put
gas in their car, pay tuition, or purchase prescription drugs. And, as
Senator McConnell pointed out, there will be an even larger tax
increase on small businesses--small businesses that we expect to create
the new jobs we will continue to need as our economy and technology
evolves.
Unfortunately, not only are taxes getting higher, they are getting
more complicated. According to the President's panel on tax reform,
there have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code since 1986.
With all of these changes, it is no wonder that the average time burden
for all taxpayers filing a 1040 is 30 hours, and now more than 6 in 10
Americans hire someone to help prepare their returns every year.
So in addition to taking 113 days in wages, the Federal Government
requires you to spend an initial day and even more money to hire a
professional to make sense of what you owe. It is a daunting task for
anyone, particularly if they have a family and business activities to
make sense of what they owe.
In January, I introduced a radical solution, and I think the time has
come for a radical solution to bring some common sense to this process.
My bill, the Fair and Simple Tax Act, will simplify the Tax Code and
help American families keep more of their paychecks. It will get rid of
the AMT and the double calculations middle-income taxpayers must make.
It will eliminate higher tax rates, get rid of the myriad targeted
reductions, credit givebacks, phase-ins, phase-outs, and other special
interest provisions.
The Fair and Simple Tax Act will provide a simpler, lower, flat
income tax option, as well as offer historic tax relief for families
and businesses to create jobs for American workers.
This bill will reduce the tax rate on families and the employers who
create jobs, make permanent existing tax relief, keep current
deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable deductions, but
give Americans more control over their health care by providing tax
relief to individuals and families who do not now have access to
employer-provided health care.
Also, my bill will eliminate the death tax which is a significant
burden for farmers and small businesses.
The best fiscal policy is economic growth, job creation, and keeping
taxes low for middle-class families. And the best economic or fiscal
policy is also the best social policy. There is no better policy than
assuring a good-paying job for hard-working Americans.
The last thing our economy needs right now is a tax increase, which
is what Americans will receive when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire.
And you know what will happen. It will not only be a tax increase on
individual families; by increasing significantly taxes on small
business, it is going to curb job growth, it is going to cut the
ability of people to find a job.
Let me be clear. Unless we stop this looming tax hike, which would be
the largest in history, more than 2 million Missouri families will face
higher tax bills. My bill would prevent the family-budget-killing tax
hikes. My bill would simplify the tax rate for millions of Americans.
My bill would mean tax relief and real money back into the pockets of
American families.
Let's get real about taxes and bring back some common sense to a Tax
Code that is too complex, too confusing, and too costly. This plan will
give American taxpayers what they need: a fairer system that puts more
of their own money back in their pocketbooks and takes off their back
the hassle of April 15.
I ask for the support of my colleagues in bringing a radical but
simple commonsense reform to our Tax Code.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 20 years ago today, Senator Malcolm
Wallop of Wyoming came to the Senate floor to speak about the tax
burden Americans face. He came to the floor because it was April 15,
tax day. He came to extend his sympathies to the many, as he called it,
``frustrated taxpayers who were probably at this minute,'' he said,
``sweating bullets over a form 1040 while gnawing through yet another
pencil.''
He spoke 2 years after Congress enacted the landmark 1986 tax reform
bill, legislation intended to reform and simplify the Code and make the
chaos of past April 15s mere memories. That legislation did not reform
the Tax Code, and it fell far short of tax simplification.
Senator Wallop voted against final passage, and he knew that history
would be on his side.
The same day, he introduced into the Congressional Record a 1988
guest editorial from the Casper Star Tribune, a newspaper in Wyoming.
The editorial reflected the sentiments similar to those expressed by
Senator Wallop. Less than 2 years after enactment of that 1986 law, tax
reform and simplification spawned 2,704 changes in the Internal Revenue
Code, 42 new regulations, 65 announcements, 32 revenue rulings, and 48
new tax forms.
The changes were so complicated that in a nationwide study of 50 tax
preparers who were given hypothetical identical pieces of information
about

[[Page 5938]]

what a family would do in trying to figure out their taxes, none of the
50 tax preparers came out with the same result in terms of how much
that family would owe. The system was that complicated.
Senator Wallop said that guest editorial summed up the feelings of
taxpayers across the Nation. The author of that guest editorial
submitted 20 years ago today into the Congressional Record was a
Wyoming physician named John Barrasso. That is right, the current
occupant of Senator Wallop's Wyoming Senate seat.
The reform envisioned by Congress failed miserably to achieve its
desired result. Today, Americans continue the painful experience of
frantically attempting to complete their tax returns and write their
checks to the Government before the clock strikes midnight.
The Tax Code is even longer today, 6,000 pages and over 2.8 million
words, and it is growing. Provisions within the Code regularly expire,
and then they are extended on an irregular basis. The IRS estimates
that the average amount of time an American taxpayer is going to take
to fill out their tax returns in this year is over 30 hours. More than
6 in 10 Americans hire someone to help prepare their returns for them.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually trying to comply
with our complicated tax laws.
Many post offices across America will be staying open until midnight
tonight. Why? To give taxpayers one last shot to meet the deadline.
It is no wonder that more than 10 million Americans will request an
extension this year. The future does not look much better for American
taxpayers, both in terms of tax simplification and in terms of tax
relief.
Americans work day in and day out to pay for Washington programs that
they would not wish on their worst enemy. In too many families, one
parent works to put food on the table and the other parent works to pay
for the Washington bureaucracy.
The Government is too big. It spends too much. Americans get it.
Americans have to balance their own budgets. They have to balance their
own checkbooks. The Government should do the same. And the Government
should do it the same way that American families do it--by controlling
spending.
The current tax system is a mess, it is too complicated, it is
antigrowth, and it discourages additional investment in America. The
American taxpayer rightfully deserves a system that is simple. The
American taxpayer deserves a system that provides certainty. The
American taxpayer deserves a system that encourages success and
innovation, and the American taxpayer deserves a system that is based
on what is in their best interests and not the best interests of
Government.
Have you ever wondered why tax day is April 15 and not, say, 6 months
later, October 15? Imagine, if you will, if tax day were right before
election day. Then the voices of the taxpayers would register loudly
and clearly. Maybe this is the solution necessary to ensure that
people, not the Government, come first because, after all, the money
belongs to the people, the hard-working people of Wyoming and every
other State in this country, not to the Government. It is the people's
money; it is not the Government's money.
The American taxpayer deserves better, the American taxpayer deserves
tax simplification, the American taxpayer deserves tax relief, and the
American taxpayer deserves action.
Change the system? Well, it is not an easy undertaking but a
necessary one. Four criteria are necessary to make the effective
change. It must be fair so people pay their fair share. It must be
simple so people can quickly file their own returns. It must be
uniform. No matter who you are, the system must be applied equally to
every taxpayer. And, No. 4, it must be consistent. Changing the system
every year is not good for the economy and is not good for taxpayers.
During his floor speech on April 15, 1988, 20 years ago today,
Wyoming Senator Malcolm Wallop said that his vote against the tax
reform conference report, as he said, ``was one of the best things I
have done since I have been in the Senate.'' He was right on target.
His words have survived the test of time. Let us hope that 20 more
years--20 more years--do not pass before we get it right.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much more time remains for business on
our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fourteen and a half minutes.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, recently, I noted a story in the Wall Street Journal
that preceded the primary date of March 4 in Texas, and Ohio as well.
Not to pick on our friends in Ohio by any means, but I was interested
to see the story discussed of why it is jobs and people were leaving
Ohio and why people were moving to Texas. We have had 3 million people
move to Texas since 2000.
Basically, the journalist said it boiled down to three things: He
said, No. 1, Texas is a State that believes in free trade. We believe
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, has actually increased
jobs in our State and in the United States by creating jobs for those
goods that are manufactured here and then sold in Canada and Mexico.
No. 2, the article pointed out Texas is a right-to-work State. In
other words, you don't have to join a labor union in order to get a
job. You can if you want to, but you are not required to do so as a
condition of employment.
No. 3, this article pointed out Texas did not have a State income
tax, and I assure you we never will. The people in my State like
government as small as possible. They like to keep taxes low, and they
realize the decisions we have made in our State have made it a
conducive environment for job creators to move to our State to create
opportunity for people to move there, to get a job, to raise their
family, and to seek to achieve their dreams.
Today, we are talking about tax day for the Federal taxpayer, and I
think we ought to learn something from the lessons we have found
demonstrated in places such as Texas, where we have kept taxes low.
Having lower tax rates is perhaps the best stimulus package you could
ever pass. We have passed a couple stimulus packages so far this year.
First, the bipartisan package, which will result in a check being
written to many taxpayers that they will receive in the next few weeks,
and then we also passed a housing bill last week. But I submit the best
stimulus we could pass is by keeping taxes low.
This first chart I have demonstrates an uncomfortable fact, and that
is the American taxpayer has to work until April 23 of this year in
order to pay their taxes. In other words, here we are on April 15, and
taxpayers still have another few days, another week or so to work to
pay their tax bill before they can begin to work for themselves and for
their families and for their small business.
This is another revealing chart, I think, because it points out how
many days of the year an individual works, or the average taxpayer
works, to pay for essentials such as housing, which is very much a part
of our agenda recently because of the housing crunch; health care,
health care costs are a significant portion of every family's budget,
and the average taxpayer works 50 days a year to pay for their health
care; food, equating to 35 days; and transportation, 29 days. As you
can see, to pay Federal taxes, an individual has to work 74 days; to
pay the State, local, and other taxes, it is another 39 days.
Particularly at a time when the economy is not doing as well as we
would like, Congress seems to be acting inconsistently, first of all,
in passing a stimulus package which is sending checks to taxpayers
because we are worried taxpayers don't have enough money to spend to
help stimulate the economy. Yet at the same time, both the House of
Representatives and this body passed a budget that raises taxes,
imposing almost $2,400 more in taxes onto my constituents in Texas.
Now, it may not seem like a lot of money to some here in Washington,
but I can assure you that to many of

[[Page 5939]]

my constituents, this is real money and money they would prefer to have
to invest in their businesses and spend according to their own desires
rather than to have Uncle Sam tap them for an additional $2,400.
I would also note this has an antistimulus effect--raising taxes--and
is inconsistent with what we are doing with regard to trying to get
more money in the hands of the American people to help us boost and
stimulate the economy. To turn around and impose an additional almost
$2,400 per person in taxes is inconsistent, to say the least, and is
antistimulus.
The Heritage Foundation has estimated that if in fact this tax
increase goes into effect--the one contemplated by the 2009 budget--
more than 70,000 Texans will likely lose their jobs because the budget
assumes higher taxes, which will harm job creation and reduce economic
output.
I know there is a lot of revisionist history in Washington about what
the last 5 or 6 years has been like in terms of the economy, but the
fact of the matter is the economy has been very good, by and large. At
least 8 million constituents of mine in Texas benefitted from the tax
relief we have passed since 2001. I would note, roughly, that same
number of new jobs was created across the country--roughly 9 million
new jobs--since the tax relief we passed in 2003. In 2007, at least 6.9
million Texans benefitted from the new low 10-percent tax bracket
created back in 2001, and more than 2 million Texas families used the
$1,000 child tax credit, all of which are timed to expire in 2011,
unless Congress acts to make that tax relief permanent.
If there is one thing we could do that would have the surest impact
of bolstering the economy, giving people more money to spend as they
see fit, it would be to make the tax relief permanent--the relief that
was made temporary back in 2001 and 2003. The dividends and the capital
gains reductions we passed in 2003 will also expire as well. These, of
course, most often impact people when they buy and sell things they
own--when they buy stock in their retirement plans, the dividends tax
relief in particular. We are going to see that increase dramatically,
unless Congress acts to stop the antistimulative effect I mentioned a
moment ago.
Today, of course, as I said, is an important day for every American,
but it is certainly not a day for celebrating. This is not a holiday
for most Americans. Today is a day of observance that is mandated by
the Federal Government and an observance which is universally dreaded
by the American people--tax day. One of the biggest reasons people hate
tax day is because it reminds them of the complex, incomprehensible
system through which a faraway agency, known as the Internal Revenue
Service, sends them a pile of forms they have to navigate to figure out
how much they owe the Federal Government.
They may ask: Do I get a W-2 or a
W-4? Can I fill out the 1040EZ or should I get the schedule D form? Do
I fill out the 1099 miscellaneous and the 1099 dividend form? What is
form 5498 for or 1065 or 4562?
Well, you get my point, hopefully. Our tax laws continue to
proliferate and become increasingly complex and increasingly
incomprehensible to most Americans. That is why so much money is spent
by average Americans getting someone else to help them figure out how
to comply with the law. The only thing going down is our comprehension
and our understanding of the tax system; all other costs associated
with this unnecessarily complex and impenetrable system are going up.
Families and entrepreneurs, as I said, spend a lot of money--billions
of dollars--and thousands of hours each year trying to figure out how
to do the right thing and how to comply with the Internal Revenue Code.
In fact, they will spend more than 6 billion hours complying with the
Federal income Tax Code, with an estimated compliance cost of more than
$265 billion. This has more than doubled since the mid-1990s. Estimates
are it will continue to increase at an even faster rate.
Every year, the National Taxpayer Advocate highlights this complexity
in one way or another as one of the top 10 problems taxpayers face. We
know the Tax Code is full of special interest loopholes and that with
each year the American taxpayer spends more and more time and more and
more money to try to figure out how to comply with its burdensome
provisions. Taxpayers, as I indicate, are working longer each year to
pay for Government--a total of 113 days this year. I think most
American taxpayers, if you asked them the question: Do you like the
system as it exists now or would you like tax reform, something
simpler, flatter or fairer? they would say: Whatever our Tax Code,
whether it be a flat tax, a sales tax or an income tax, it should be
based on three fundamental ideas: simplicity, fairness, and
transparency.
I have to tell you our Tax Code does not, as currently written, meet
any of those three requirements--of simplicity, fairness or
transparency. I think these simple standards ought to guide us in
reforming and simplifying the income tax code. I have heard several
proposals made in the last couple days. Senator Wyden, from Oregon, has
talked about a flat tax he has proposed. Senator Alexander, from
Tennessee, likewise has proposed a tax return you could fill out in one
page. Wouldn't that be great, to have a single page, something so easy
to understand you could send in a single sheet of paper and know you
have complied with your obligations to pay and report your income taxes
due?
While comprehensive tax reform may not be right around the corner,
the last thing we should do is to raise taxes on families and
entrepreneurs by letting the tax relief passed by Congress in 2001 and
2003 expire. I have already talked about the budget and its impact on
people in my State, but the budget passed last month would now require
27 million small businesses all across the country to owe an additional
$4,100. That is, if, in fact, the revenue projections in that budget
are kept, 43 million families will owe an extra $2,300 each, and 18
million seniors will each owe an additional $2,200.
Amazingly, these tax hikes and increased Federal spending come weeks,
as I pointed out, after Congress actually voted to send money back to
the taxpayers in order to get them to spend it so it would stimulate
the economy. We did this at the same time we are raising taxes and
basically taking that same money away and more. If we agree that
putting more money in the pockets of the American people is the best
way to stimulate the economy, why are we still looking to take more
money from them during tax season?
One of the most effective tools for combating this and wasteful
spending, in general, is more information, and I think a proposal I
made yesterday, which I would talk like to talk briefly about, will
actually help us hold the Federal Government more accountable for the
money it spends and give the American taxpayers more information so
they can make sure their voice is heard when it comes to tax policy and
how much money we take out of their pockets in order to fund the
Federal Government.
Yesterday, I introduced a bill called the Federal Spending and
Taxpayer Accessibility Act of 2008. This bill creates an online earmark
tracking system taxpayers can use free of charge to search for earmarks
by recipient, appropriations bill, State, and Member in real time
during the appropriations process. This legislation also directs the
IRS to provide each taxpayer with a concise and easy-to-read personal
record of the amount of taxes they have already paid, as well as a
projection of the taxes they will owe into the future, up until the
time they retire. If this sounds familiar, that is because the Social
Security Administration sends a similar statement of Social Security
taxes paid and how much you can expect, upon retirement, to receive in
benefits. I think it can play an important role when taxpayers are
planning their future, to provide them with a better idea of how much
they will owe in the future so they can take that into account.
These statements would provide taxpayers with a reminder of how much
our Government is spending and give

[[Page 5940]]

them even more reason to keep track of how their money is spent, along
with the political accountability that would flow from that. This
legislation would also build on the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006, which created a one-stop, searchable Web site
for all Federal contracts and grants. This legislation would expand the
Web site by including the expenditures of all Federal agencies,
including salaries, rent, supplies, and transportation. I know not
every American is going to be interested in that level of detail, but I
think it is important it be made available to everyone who is
interested and particularly for the press who can report on it and let
the American people know what the facts are.
On this tax day, I urge our colleagues in the Senate to take a new
stand against growing Government, growing spending, and growing taxes.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip is recognized.

____________________

DELAYING TACTICS IN THE SENATE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the majority leader
when he comes to the floor, which could be momentarily. But I would
like to, if I may, in morning business, address an issue which I think
goes to the heart and soul of what the Senate is all about. One hundred
men and women come together in this Senate, two from each State, to be
part of a rich tradition in the history of this country, part of a
national debate about the issues that are timely and important. It is
an opportunity for the American people, through us, to have a voice and
actually speak to these issues.
Unfortunately, time and again, this voice has been silenced, delayed
by tactics from the minority side of the aisle.
I see the majority leader is here. I am going to yield to him at this
point. I know he wanted to make the opening statement in morning
business.
I yield to the majority leader.

____________________

FILIBUSTERS AND DELAYS IN THE SENATE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to my good friend,
the senior Senator from the State of Illinois.
Today is April 15. It is a big, red-letter day for people because it
is the last day to file your income tax returns. As we send in our
taxes--and some, as will happen tonight, will wait in line to file
their tax returns--it is a good time to give thought to the economic
state of our families and our economy, generally.
Since President Bush took office, the cost of gasoline has gone up
more than 100 percent, more than doubled. The cost of home heating has
skyrocketed. The price we pay for groceries has never been higher.
The head of the World Bank said, 3 days ago, that 31 countries will
be in desperate need of food within a matter of months, and there could
be riots in those countries. We are very fortunate in America, we don't
have a shortage of food. But people are having trouble paying for the
food they would like to eat. The same is true for health care, for
prescription drugs--for college tuition. At the University of Nevada,
we have a new law school. I was happy to see in the latest rankings it
came out ranked 78th--a new law school ranked 78th in the Nation. That
is remarkable. They have done such a good job.
But they also announced they are going to double the tuition at that
new small law school--double the tuition. The cost of going to State
institutions is going up. Why? Because the economies of our States are
so desperately bad. In the State of Nevada, because of the downturn in
the economy, the Governor, with the State legislature, has had to cut
almost $1 billion in programs that are there in the State--road
construction, new buildings, new programs--and cutting some of the old
programs. Of course, they have a program to let prisoners out of our
prisons more quickly, not because it is good for the people of the
State of Nevada but because they are desperate for money.
We are paying record prices for nearly everything. Yet the average
household income has dropped. American families are earning less and
paying more. The Republican answer, for 7 years, has been to slash
taxes for the ultrawealthy, to side with big business, oil companies,
utility companies, and let the little guy fend for himself.
We have worked hard, as the Democratic Party--first in the minority,
now in the majority--to cut taxes for the middle class, to end the
dependence on oil that keeps our gas and heating bills sky high, to
make health care and college tuition more affordable for families. We
have now tried for days to quickly pass a highway bill that takes care
of some of the problems we had in the massive bill we had before. There
are corrections we would like to make on that. Last Thursday evening,
the distinguished assistant leader was on the floor, as was the
assistant leader for the Republicans. We talked about: Why are we
having another filibuster on this? My friend, the junior Senator from
Arizona, said: Oh, there will be no filibuster on this, everything is
going fine--words to that effect. We had to vote last night to invoke
cloture, and rather than being able to legislate on the bill, we are
talking on the bill, stalling, wasting time.
We could have started on this legislation Thursday night. We could
have legislated all day yesterday and all day today. But, no, we are
not going to be able to do that. We are going to use the full 30 hours.
This is a number--it is probably higher than this, but let's assume
this is right. The last time we came out and said there were 70-plus
filibusters, they came out and said: Oh, no, not that many, not that
many. So say 65, for purposes of this discussion.
In the history of this country previously--and I am going to use
leader time, not morning business time, Mr. President, during my
presentation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has that right.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the entire history of the country, no
matter what has been going on in this country--and we have been through
some difficult times--the most filibusters we ever had were 61 or 62
during a 2-year period of time, during an entire Congress. But now, in
the first year of this Congress, they broke that record--stalling,
slowing things down so we cannot legislate the people's business. That
is because they are protecting the status quo.
Can you imagine filibustering a bill that is correcting technical
mistakes made by the two Houses in passing this legislation previously?
They are filibustering that--commas, semicolons, dotting an ``i,''
crossing a ``t,'' that is what we are doing, that is what this
legislation is all about, technical corrections--supported by the
ranking member, Senator Inhofe, and the chairman, Senator Boxer. They
are filibustering this, making us use all the time.
Some may ask why they are doing this. The main reason is they are
protecting the status quo. Time after time, Republicans seemed intent
on obstruction only for obstruction's sake. They pursued this course on
legislative matters large and small. It doesn't have to be, as they
have done many times, stopping us from moving forward on matters
relating to Iraq--many times. Let's consider that a big issue. But
let's consider what we are doing today a small issue--technical
corrections on a bill.
Look what is going on in the country today. Look what is going on in
the world today. We listen to the news or find it in the newspaper.
Today in Iraq--scores of people killed in Iraq. Bombs here, bombs
there, two American soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday. We have learned
2.7 million people are displaced in Iraq. That is Iraqis. The
population is only 25 million people to begin with and 2.7 million of
them are wandering around trying to find a place to live in Iraq. About
3 million have left the country. They have blocked us from doing
anything about that.
We had General Petraeus talk about what is going on in Iraq. He
didn't answer the question: Are we any safer now than we were before
this Iraq war

[[Page 5941]]

started, before the surge started? No answer to that. When are we going
to get our troops home? No answer to that. They have even gone forward
on tactics delaying matters on legislation they ultimately came to
support--stalling for time.
The most unfortunate aspect of Republican strategy is real people
suffer because of it. Why do I say that? There are a lot of things we
need to do as a country. We have, now, a big merger that took place
making big business even bigger. Delta Airlines has joined with
Northwest. They will have 75,000 or 80,000 employees. Now there is talk
of United joining with other companies. We have heard Southwest
Airlines--they were flying airplanes that were in bad shape, but they
did it anyway.
We have learned in recent weeks the Federal Aviation Agency is
protecting the airlines and not the consumer. We have a bill we need to
do, FAA reauthorization. We need to do that bill. We would like to
bring up that bill, but we cannot because we are being stalled on a
technical corrections bill--only stalling for time.
Veterans health care--Senator Akaka has asked for months: Why can't I
bring up my bill? Every time, I say to him: Senator Akaka, we are doing
our best, but they stalled us on this and they stalled us on that. That
is something we want to do this work period, as we do the FAA
legislation.
There is an important piece of legislation--genetic
nondiscrimination. A lot of things are happening in medicine. We have
the ability to look at people and find out what their genes are going
to forecast for the future. But we don't want, as a result of advances
in medical care and treatment in this regard, to have someone who may
be prone to getting some disease 10 or 15 years from now be
discriminated against in the workplace. This is an important piece of
legislation, and it is being held up; we can't get to that.
Flood insurance--we want to be able to do this. It is important to
the American people. We hear a lot about the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. What they deal with more than anything else--more
than earthquakes, tornadoes, fires--is floods. Flooding is the most
devastating natural disaster we have every year in America, and we want
to do something to have the flood insurance program in this country
mean something. We saw the never-ending litigation in Louisiana and
Mississippi and Alabama as a result of Katrina. One of the reasons for
that litigation is the legislation was not clear. It was not good
legislation. We need to change that.
Food safety? My friend from Illinois has been working for a long time
to do something about food safety--what can we do to make it better, so
that when you go to a fast-food restaurant, you don't get salmonella;
if you get a steak, it is OK. Has it been inspected? We have not been
able to legislate in that regard.
It is disheartening to recognize and realize what we are not able to
do, as a result of the Republicans wanting to maintain the status quo.
Why can't we go through this piece of legislation, let Senator Boxer
move forward on completing it, and then go to one of the other matters.
There are a lot of other matters we need go to. I have only mentioned a
few of them.
When I go home, people ask: Why aren't you getting more done? I tell
them the Republicans are stalling, they want the status quo. Here is a
perfect illustration, I say to my friends who have asked that question.
Why are we being asked to waste valuable Senate time--that is all we
have is time--valuable Senate time on something that is so unnecessary.
We are waiting here. We came in at 10. The Republicans say we can't go
to the bill; they want to go to their caucus and discuss what they want
to do on the technical corrections bill.
I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle, the
Republicans, would let us start legislating. After we passed the
stimulus bill for housing, I thought we could enter into a program
where we would start doing that. I do not know what they could talk
about in their caucus about how difficult this particular technical
corrections bill is. I said we are not going to fill the tree, which
means they can offer amendments. Let them offer amendments. We invite
them to offer amendments. But let's move forward on this legislation.
The Republican filibusters of this Congress, 65, is recordbreaking.
They should be proud of that. We invoked cloture on more than 65 of
those issues. We are still counting. Today is one of those counts that
continue. I am very disappointed that we are being stalled again on
something as insignificant as a technical corrections bill on highways.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will you alert me when I have spoken 10
minutes in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be notified.
Mr. DURBIN. A filibuster is a way to stop the Senate from acting. A
filibuster is an effort to make sure the Senate does nothing. You saw
the movie with Jimmy Stewart, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He took
to the floor as a freshman Senator and stood there speaking in a
filibuster until he collapsed in physical exhaustion.
Well, it does not quite happen that way anymore. What happens, of
course, is someone says: I am going to stop the Senate, and you are
going to have to come up with 60 votes to stop me.
Well, Democrats have 51 votes in this current Senate; the Republicans
have 49. So anytime we want to move forward with a piece of legislation
to which a Republican Senator objects, we need their help to stop a
filibuster. They know that.
So their strategy this year has been to slow us down to a crawl so
nothing happens and to make sure when something comes up that they
think might be a delicate vote for them to face, they start a
filibuster. Then we cannot come up with 60 votes, and we move on to
something else.
The net result of this filibuster strategy from the Republican side
of the aisle is that critically important issues, such as the ones
mentioned by the majority leader, cannot be addressed in the Senate.
The House passes important and timely legislation and sends it over,
and the Republican strategy on this side is to stop anything from
happening.
Look at the issues we are facing in this country. The Senator from
California is here. She is the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, and this committee is considering critical legislation
on the question of global warming. This is important for us as a
nation. It is important for our planet. And we know when this critical
legislation which has now been reported from her committee comes to the
floor, we will face a string of filibusters.
That is part and parcel now of the procedure in the Senate. But you
say: Well, wait a minute. That is a big issue. Global warming is a
controversial issue with some. You expect some political controversy.
Right?
Well, accepting that argument, I then have to ask you: Why were we
involved in a filibuster until last night by the Republicans on the
bill before us today? This is a technical corrections bill. When we
passed the highway bill, the Federal highway bill years ago, it was a
huge bill affecting the entire United States of America. Then, as we
combed through it, word for word, line for line, page for page, we
found there were technicalities that needed to be changed: punctuation,
references to a road instead of a trail. You find them in here. They go
on for hundreds of pages.
But they are technical in nature; it is not a big policy debate. This
kind of bill usually passes in the Congress by a voice vote late at
night and no one notices. It is housekeeping. That is ordinarily what
we do when we try to catch up and make sure everything is done just
right.
Senator Boxer has worked long and hard to bring it out of her
committee and bring it to the Senate floor, and the Republicans
initiated a filibuster against the technical corrections bill.

[[Page 5942]]

That is like having a resolution to salute motherhood and having them
initiate a filibuster. Where is the controversy? There is no
controversy in this bill. If they want to offer amendments, we said on
this side: If they are germane amendments to the bill, have at it. That
is what the Senate is all about, after all.
But the Republican strategy of filibusters, as indicated by this
chart, in the history of Congress, the minority party has initiated no
more than 57 filibusters in any 2-year period of time. That is the
record, 57 in 2 years.
So far in this Congress, we are barely a few months into the second
year. The minority party, the Republicans, has initiated 65
filibusters, and we are still counting.
You say to yourself: Well, they must have been some pretty
controversial issues they had to filibuster. A technical corrections
bill? So why do they filibuster? So that we burn the clock and eat up
days so we cannot address the issues that are even more important to
this country.
Would it not be great for us as a Senate to consider and debate a
national energy policy to bring down the price of gasoline in the
United States? No way. The Republicans insist on filibustering a bill
that focuses on punctuation. Would it not be timely for us to consider
the cost of health insurance to businesses and families across America
and find a way to make it more affordable and accessible? No way. The
Republicans want to debate a bill which changes the word ``trail'' to
``road'' and filibuster it.
That is the reality. And time and again when we have brought up
issues, the Republicans have initiated a filibuster in this Congress.
You cannot read this; I can barely read it. It is a list of the
Republican filibusters so far in this Congress, 65 and still counting.
Let me give you a couple of examples, if I can, of the egregious
Republican filibusters in this Congress. We had a bill to implement the
9/11 Commission Report to fight terrorism in America--filibustered by
the Republicans.
We had a bill authorizing the intelligence agencies to make America
safer--filibustered by the Republicans.
We had a bill for court security so that judges and their families
would be safe when they are at work or at home--filibustered by the
Republicans.
We had a water resources bill to deal with the infrastructure of
America and create good-paying jobs right here at home--filibustered by
the Republicans.
The Clean Energy Act, an effort to use renewable, sustainable energy
to reduce pollution and stimulate the needs of our economy--
filibustered by the Republicans.
The CHIP reauthorization bill, a bill for health insurance for poor
children across America, not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, not
lucky enough to have health insurance--filibustered by the Republicans.
The economic stimulus package to get this country out of the
recession and moving--filibustered by the Republicans.
A Consumer Products Safety Commission overall to stop toys with lead-
based paint from coming into this country from China--filibustered by
the Republicans.
GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. That is what the Republicans
called their party, the Grand Old Party. But when it comes to the
Republicans in the Senate, GOP stands for ``Graveyard of Progress.''
They want to stop this Senate from making any progress on critical
issues for this country. They want to run out the clock by
filibustering a technical corrections bill.
There is only one remedy for this. It comes in November. The American
people will have a chance to speak then. They can initiate a filibuster
which the Republicans will hear. They can speak long and loudly and
clearly that it is time for change in this Senate. The old ways of
Washington dominated by special interest groups really hidebound to the
partisanship that will not even let us bring up these technical
correction issues has to change.
Voters in this country have the last word in November to elect agents
of change, people who will make a difference for improving this
country.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that you notify me when I have gone
10 minutes in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the
transportation technical corrections bill. First, I commend my friend
and colleague, Senator Boxer, on her hard work and leadership in
putting in these corrections.
I thank Leader Reid for his determination to get this act through the
body. Yet it seems our colleagues across the aisle will stop at nothing
to obstruct our efforts which will improve the lives of working
Americans who struggle to make ends meet and filibuster a comma,
filibuster an exclamation point, filibuster the name change of a road
to a way.
What is going on here? What is going on? Well, I have two points I
would like to make. But first I ask my colleagues across the aisle, is
there any topic that you will not filibuster? If you will filibuster a
technical corrections bill, name changes, punctuation changes,
corrections in terms of where the miles were supposed to be and where
they are, what will you not filibuster?
Now, let's talk about two things. First, this bill is a win-win for
the American people. We are entering a recession. We all know we need
to prime the pump. Many of us believe we should have a large public
works spending program. But the question is, Should we pay for it or
should we not?
But in the SAFETEA-LU bill, this technical corrections bill, the
money is already allocated. It cannot be spent because of some
nonpolitical small error in the drafting. So this bill makes those
corrections and hundreds of projects can sally forth and employ people
with no particular cost to the Federal Government. Who could object to
that? Do my colleagues want to tell the construction workers and those
who have little diners and lunch places and restaurants where
construction workers eat, and those who supply the construction
industry: Heck with all of you, we are filibustering.
So on the merits it makes no sense to block this bill--on the merits.
I have to say this to our minority leader: I know there are probably
Members on his side who say: I want something else. I do not want to
let this bill go through. There is a larger obligation. If we let every
single Member of the other side of the aisle paralyze this body, then
we are doing America a disservice.
I would plead with the minority leader to tell his individual
Members: You do not have--each one of you does not have veto power over
anything, particularly something as trivial as this.
So why is this happening? That is the second point I wanted to
address. I will tell you why. The other side is basically paralyzed.
They have no program for America. They have no agenda for America. They
do not know what to say except the old nostrums that were rejected
years and years and years ago. They cannot say yes and so they try to
show some kind of position. They just say no. That is what is going on
here. It is the internal problem on the other side of the aisle, the
hard right versus the right, versus the mainstream versus the
moderates. They are all in a knot, and they cannot come to an agreement
on anything, even a technical corrections bill that everyone has agreed
to on the substance.
So the only thing that can unify them is a two-letter word: N-o.
Well, let me say that to allow any single Member to obstruct this
bill is not living up to what the Senate is all about. It is not living
up to what America is all about. It is not living up to what democracy
is all about. Our leader has not said you cannot amend. Our leader has
not said you cannot debate. I know there are a few Members on the other
side of the aisle who believe there may be changes made. Let them
debate it and let's vote.
But, no, the answer is only no. It has not been only on this bill. My
friend and colleague from Illinois went through a long list of bills
that are even more consequential than this one.

[[Page 5943]]

Now, this one is not inconsequential. The changes are inconsequential,
but the results are consequential. Again, it will employ thousands of
people and release millions of dollars that have already been paid for
to do worthy projects.
That, nobody disputes. But instead we have 65 filibusters already; 57
is the record--65 and going up. The filibuster used to be used on
issues of major importance. It is now being used for everything, even
the changing of punctuation and spelling, misspellings. Why? Because
the only thing that unifies the other side is the word ``no.''
Well, the American people, come November 2008, are going to say
``no'' to the other side.
They are going to say: No more of this obstruction. We are going to
give our side the number of votes we need to move forward, because 50
votes is not enough. Sixty is the need. This temporary refuge in the
word ``no'' of a false unity will only be temporary.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor, along with the
majority leader and my colleagues, to express our extreme frustration
with what the minority, the Republicans are doing to block basic bills
from getting through the Senate. We are trying to move to debate and
offer amendments on a basic bill that needs to be done, called a
technical corrections bill for transportation projects, changing minor
things in the law so it can move forward. Normally this bill is done
late at night; everyone agrees to it; there is no objection; it moves
on; it takes only a few hours of time. It has gone through a lot of
work in committee, which Senator Boxer chairs. They have done all their
homework. It has passed on a bipartisan basis, and it was approved by
the Senate late last night as a procedural move. But we are here today,
spending hours and hours with no ability to move forward, no ability to
offer amendments, no ability to pass it, because the Republican
minority has decided to filibuster this bill.
I go home every week, 2,500 miles away from here to the State of
Washington. People come up to me and say: What are we going to do about
the rising cost of health care? What are we going to do about the fact
that fewer and fewer doctors are seeing seniors going into Medicare?
What are we going to do about veterans waiting in line to get the care
they have been promised? What are we going to do about the housing
crisis? What are we going to do about Iraq and the President's request
for $109 billion more? In Washington, Boeing workers come up to me and
say: What are we going to do about a procurement process that has
allowed our military to send $40 billion to a European-owned company,
our tax dollars, at a time when our economy is struggling, to a
European-owned company to start producing the backbone of our military,
our air tankers? What are we going to do about that?
These are issues that we as Democrats want to bring to the floor and
have major debates on, move legislation forward. They will take time.
There is disagreement. Growing up in Washington State, when somebody
said there is a filibuster, I assumed it was a major argument of the
day. We would rush to find out what it was about and see which Senators
were arguing which way and wonder in what direction this would change
our country in the future.
We are a long way from that today. The filibuster is now being used
as a delaying tactic so we won't get to those critical pieces of
legislation, those critical debates we ought to be having in the
Senate.
Republicans have engaged in an historic, record-setting level of
obstruction over the last 14 months. They haven't filibustered the
bills themselves, but they have filibustered motions to proceed to
basic bills that we need to pass to keep Government running. They have
delayed us from moving forward even after voting in favor of these
bills. That is where we find ourselves today. Once again, Republicans
have decided to keep us from moving forward simply to delay progress.
They don't oppose the legislation. In fact, after filing cloture on the
motion to proceed last Thursday and waiting the obligatory 30 hours,
last night the Senate voted, and 93 Senators wanted to move this
legislation forward. So why are we sitting here today delaying 30 more
hours before Senators can even start to offer amendments, if they so
choose, so that we can then move the bill to final passage, unless, of
course, we have to file a motion to end debate and get to another
filibuster of 30 hours, which will take a lot more time.
We have seen this before. It is about delaying. It is about not
allowing America to move forward. It is about not allowing progress.
The word ``filibuster'' gets thrown around a lot here. People think of
``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' and the movie appears in their head.
That is the most celebrated version of a filibuster. But there are all
kinds of filibusters. We have learned that firsthand, because at the
core a filibuster is any procedural move to delay the Senate. Any one
Senator has the power to delay us. The majority and the minority have
the power to talk to Members and say: This is important to enough of us
that we need to move past those objections and begin to move this
forward. We need to work toward an agreement so we can move forward.
Time and time again we have seen people use delays on motions to
proceed, and then the Senate has to wait 30 hours, 30 long hours with
people such as me sitting out here talking on the floor on
miscellaneous subjects until we can finally get through 30 hours so we
can then be on the floor for hours waiting for Senators to offer
amendments. That kind of delay has forced this Senate in this Congress
for over a year now into weeks and weeks and weeks of wasted time. No
wonder the American people think nothing is getting done in Washington.
We are seeing delay after delay. Believe me, we are all frustrated that
we cannot get to those important topics of the day, to be able to have
perhaps a real filibuster on a real issue that is important, that would
change the direction of this country. That is what a filibuster ought
to be about. But here we have to file cloture on the motion to proceed
to basic bills. We have had to file procedural motions on whether to
follow the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which then passed 97 to
nothing, once we got through all of those hours of waiting around. On
the intelligence authorization bill, we had to file a motion to proceed
to the bill, had to wait the 30 hours, and then the vote was 94 to 3.
So a couple of Senators forced an entire Senate to wait 30 hours and
not get anything done. Bill after bill I could list a desire on the
part of the minority to delay progress.
What we are seeing is Republicans who are united for obstruction on
issue after issue. Month after month, Republicans have put delay before
debate, procedure above progress, and obstruction before solutions.
The American people, certainly in my State of Washington, want us to
move forward and deal with the issues critical to their families. They
are struggling today with the economy. They are worried about their
ability to retire. They are worried about being able to send their kids
to college. Certainly, our men and women who have gone to fight the war
in Iraq are coming home and facing delays. Yet we can't get a veterans
bill up on this floor because of the delays we are seeing.
Here we are today, waiting around to vote on a technical corrections
bill to a transportation bill that ought to take a few minutes.
It is a sad day in the United States. I hope our colleagues will talk
to their leaders and say: We need to move on. It is time to get the
business of this country done. That is our job.
I yield the floor and 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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 5944]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could the Chair tell me what the current
state of the parliamentary situation is right now?

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Morning business is closed.

____________________

HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 1195,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 608, a
bill (H.R. 1195) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to
make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very hopeful we can move this bill.
When my kids were a little younger, they used to say: Mom, it is a no-
brainer.
This is a no-brainer. This is something we need to do. We passed a
very important bill several years ago that funds our highways and our
transit. As often happens--because the years pass and the studies take
place and you find there were errors in such a big bill that
encompasses so many programs--there were certain very important
transportation projects, highway projects that got stymied because of a
technical problem. We also had one account that was oversubscribed and
we need to make some fixes there because that particular account funds
research into the state of our bridges, our highways, our transit
systems, and we all know with bridges collapsing in America today, we
can't short ourselves on the funding. We need to find out exactly what
is the state of our fiscal infrastructure.
In a great economy, you can't move people and you can't move goods
without a transportation infrastructure. That means roads that are not
falling apart, bridges that are not falling apart, transit systems that
work. Especially in this time of more awareness of being efficient,
energy efficient, all of this works together as we look at global
warming and the best ways to combat that.
This is a very simple bill. Why are we standing here without actually
voting on a few amendments that we know some of my Republican friends
have? It is because there is a move by some Republican Senators to slow
us down, slow down our work. My colleagues heard about it previous to
my taking the floor today. Several colleagues talked about the
unprecedented number of filibusters.
But I have to say on the bright side, this is a bill that Senator
Inhofe and I have worked very closely on. We agree on it. It is
bipartisan in nature. There are a couple of colleagues who don't like a
couple of things in here. We will deal with that. We will deal with it,
but let's get moving. It seems a shame to have the Presiding Officer
sitting in the chair in front of an empty Chamber while the time clicks
away and we can't get anything done on a technical corrections bill.
I might say everyone is quite aware that we are in an economic
slowdown. I look at this bill as a little bit of a ministimulus
package, because it will unleash about $1 billion for very important
projects already approved. It will unleash those funds. For every
billion dollars, tens of thousands of new jobs are created in the
construction industry. We have a very long list of people supporting us
on this bill. Again, I call on my friends and colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who for some reason are holding up this bill: Please.
We are willing to have votes on your objections in the form of an
amendment. We are willing to work with you. We want to get this bill
done. The American people need this bill done. There is no reason to
get it caught up in other political arguments and questions.
I hope I can come out here in short order with the news that my
Republican friends have decided to let us go to the amendment process
so we can move forward and complete our work on this bill.
At this point I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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.

____________________

CONGRATULATING BOSTON COLLEGE MEN'S ICE HOCKEY TEAM

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to
congratulate Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey team on their
Division I National Championship and to offer a Senate resolution with
my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, to recognize the team's
extraordinary accomplishment.
This past Saturday, in Denver, Boston College defeated the University
of Notre Dame four goals to one to claim their third national
championship and their second since 2001. For the Eagles and their
legion of supporters, known as the ``Super Fans,'' this victory marks
the culmination of years of hard work in which they reached the Frozen
Four's championship game in 3 consecutive years. Junior Nathan Gerbe
was named the Frozen Four's Most Outstanding Player.
Led by head coach Jerry York, Nathan Gerbe, captain Mike Brennan, and
assistant captains Matt Greene and Dan Bertram, the Eagles compiled an
impressive overall record of 24 wins, 11 losses, and 8 ties during the
2007 to 2008 season, which also included Boston College's 14th victory
in the historic Beanpot Championship.
With their work ethic and dedication, the Eagles have made the entire
Boston College community and all of us in New England proud. We
congratulate the entire team, its coaches, and fans.
We also thank Father William P. Leahy, president of Boston College,
who has proved that you can foster a collegiate environment in which
both academic and athletic excellence are the order of the day. The
team deserves great credit for its extraordinary achievement, and I
urge my colleagues in the Senate to approve this resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the
Boston Globe be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Boston Globe, Apr. 14, 2008]

At BC, a Moment To Savor

(By Nancy Marrapese-Burrell)

Denver.--When Boston College won its NCAA championship in
2001, Bobby Allen was one of the team captains. So it seemed
fitting that it was Allen who gave the 2007-08 Eagles a
crucial pep talk last week just prior to their departure for
the Mile High City and this year's Frozen Four.
In essence, Allen told the players to live in the moment,
to revel in the joy of the event and remember that hockey is
a labor of love.
The team took that message to heart. After beating Notre
Dame, 4-1, in the title game Saturday night at the Pepsi
Center, the seniors in particular felt the weight of the
world lifted off their shoulders. They were the ones who most
acutely realized it was their last chance after two
consecutive failed attempts at the crown. Senior center Dan
Bertram said they were determined it wasn't going to elude
them a third time.
``I think [the experience factor] helped us a lot,'' said
Bertram. ``I know with our senior class here, we were all
pretty tight. We didn't know exactly what the feeling was
like to be on the other side and we sure as heck didn't want
to have that this year. Everyone else really saw the passion
from our captain [Mike Brennan] all the way down and you
can't say enough about just this feeling and the
achievement.''
When Allen and his teammates were celebrating their
victory, John Muse was only 12

[[Page 5945]]

years old. The Falmouth native, who backstopped the Eagles in
all 44 games this season, allowed only two goals in the
Frozen Four, one each to North Dakota and Notre Dame.
``He's been unbelievable,'' said Bertram. ``I think
everyone is going to know who John Muse is now. We're so
proud of him and we had so much confidence in him. That's a
hard thing, to come in as a freshman, and the whole year he
has played solid, consistent hockey. The way he played in the
Frozen Four is unbelievable. These guys are lucky to have him
for another three years.''
While Muse was keeping out goals in his end, neither the
Fighting Sioux nor the Fighting Irish could do a thing about
junior left wing Nathan Gerbe, who tallied 4 points in each
game (five goals, three assists) on the way to being named
the tournament's most outstanding player. It's as if Gerbe
was playing on an entirely different stage than anyone else.
All they could do was watch.
``In our eyes, he's the best player in the country,'' said
Bertram. ``To show up in the biggest games, I think that's
the best [praise] someone can give you. He's a big-game
player. To lead this team and score those big goals, he's
going to be a great player at the national level, too, but
it's just so nice to experience and play with him here and
just see that talent first-hand. He's a game-breaker and if
you give him some chances and loosen up a little bit, he's
going to make you pay. The last two games, he was
unbelievable.''
The seniors provided strong leadership throughout the
season, which was not always very smooth. There were winless
streaks, injuries, and player dismissals. But the steady
upperclassmen helped right the ship for the stretch run and
none allowed themselves to get too excited until practically
the final seconds ticked off the clock.
``I wasn't exhaling until I looked up with six seconds left
and said, `All right, I don't think they can score three
goals with six seconds left,' '' said Bertram. ``It's almost
surreal when you're sitting there and kind of watching the
clock go down, 30 seconds at a time. I guess when it got to
1:30 [left] and I'm thinking, `This is really in out of reach
now.' Six seconds was the only time I was like, `OK, start
enjoying it a little bit.' ''
Senior Matt Greene said in his 22 years of living, the
feeling of accomplishment is unmatched.
``I can't say this is the best feeling I'll ever feel, but
this certainly is the highlight of my life so far,'' he said.
Greene acknowledged, however, it hadn't quite hit him that
although the seniors went out on the ultimate high, his
collegiate career is over.
``I've got a couple more weeks to stick around the BC
campus,'' said Greene. ``It's the last time I'll stare across
and give [Andrew] Orpik a wink or maybe throw a tape ball at
[Brian Gibbons] or maybe a little bit of ice at [Kyle
Kucharski]. That's all a part of being a team.
``Hockey is a special sport because you grow in
relationships more than I think in any other sport. We deeply
mean what we say and it's going to hit me for sure.''
Bertram said as devastated as they were to lose in the two
title games prior to this one, that's how incredible the
feeling is to win.
``You never want to lose,'' said Bertram. ``It's nice as
senior, you're remembered for your last game. There is no
better feeling than leaving Boston College, which has been so
good to us, on top and winning. It's something I'll never
forget and it's something forever I will be proud of.''
The Eagles will hold an autograph session at Conte Forum at
5:30 this afternoon, followed by a victory celebration at
6:15 p.m.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 514 submitted earlier
today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 514) congratulating the Boston
College men's ice hockey team on winning the 2008 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I National Ice
Hockey Championship.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to
consider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the
Record without intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 514) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 514

Whereas, on Saturday, April 12, 2008, the Boston College
men's ice hockey team (referred to in this preamble as the
``Eagles'') won the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) Division I National Ice Hockey
Championship by defeating the University of Notre Dame men's
ice hockey team by the score of 4 to 1 in the final game of
the Frozen Four;
Whereas the University of Notre Dame men's ice hockey team
deserves great respect for reaching the Frozen Four for the
first time in the team's history and then advancing to the
National Championship game;
Whereas the victory for Boston College marked the Eagles'
third national hockey championship, after the team's first
championship win in 1949 and its second championship win in
2001;
Whereas the Eagles earned the number 1 seed in the NCAA
hockey tournament with an impressive overall record of 24
wins, 11 losses, and 8 ties during the 2007-2008 season;
Whereas the Eagles were led by junior Nathan Gerbe, the
Nation's leading scorer in men's college ice hockey, who came
in second for the Hobey Baker Memorial Award, with 35 goals
and 32 assists during the season;
Whereas the Eagles have made the National Championship game
in each of the past 3 years, demonstrating extraordinary
teamwork and dedication;
Whereas the remarkable 2007-2008 season also included a
memorable victory for the Eagles in the historic Beanpot
Championship in February 2008, earning Boston College its
14th Beanpot Championship;
Whereas Boston College ``Super Fans'' traveled great
distances all year and gave the Eagles strong support
throughout their championship season; and
Whereas Boston College and its student athletes are well
known for their commitment to both athletic and academic
excellence, ranking sixth nationally among NCAA Division I
schools in the graduation rate of student athletes: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates--
(A) the Boston College men's ice hockey team for winning
the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I
National Ice Hockey Championship; and
(B) the players, coaching staff, faculty and staff of the
university, student body, and fans whose determination,
strong work ethic, drive, and support made the 2007-2008
championship season possible;
(2) congratulates the University of Notre Dame men's ice
hockey team for its success in the 2007-2008 season and for
reaching the Frozen Four for the first time in the team's
history; and
(3) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to--
(A) Boston College President Father William P. Leahy, S.J.;
(B) Boston College Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo; and
(C) Boston College Head Coach Jerry York.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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.

____________________

RECESS

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. this afternoon.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:24 p.m., recessed until
2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer
(Mr. Carper).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

____________________

HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that our Republican
friends had a good meeting about this SAFETEA-LU technical corrections
bill and that they decided to work with us to get this job done. This,
as we say, is definitely not rocket science. It is a bill that is going
to correct some mistakes we made in this enormous highway
transportation bill that was passed several years ago. It is going to
make very important corrections so the Department of Transportation can
proceed to investigate the status of our highways, our bridges, and our
transit systems.
The bottom line is, as we get ready for our next highway bill--and,
Mr. President, you are such a key player on our committee. You know
this as well

[[Page 5946]]

as I do. We see bridges collapsing. We need to know the extent of the
problems we are facing.
Because of a problem in the bill, the account that we need to fund
these investigations and studies is oversubscribed, which is a fancy
way of saying we need to figure out another way to complete our work.
That is taken care of in this bill.
We need colleagues to help us. We are not adding one dime to the
spending on transportation systems and highways. All we are doing is
making technical corrections to make sure some of the projects that
have been stymied--let's say because the environmental report came in
and said we can't do alternative 1, we have to do alternative 2, and
alternative 2 was not authorized--will be allowed to move forward.
I did a press conference today with both management and labor of the
building trades. The construction workers are hurting out there. We
know we are in a recession. This is a mini-economic stimulus bill. We
are not suggesting it is a cure-all by any means. It is a small bill,
but it will unleash $1 billion across this great Nation of ours. When
you unleash $1 billion of spending, what it means is tens of thousands
of workers will get jobs. They are doing important projects--fixing
bridges, fixing roads, building transit systems--all the good work that
makes our Nation work.
I am here. It is about 2:20 in the afternoon. We have been on the
floor of the Senate since early Monday. Frankly, this bill could have
been done in an hour or two. We are very willing to take the few
amendments there are and work with the authors of those amendments. We
may have to have just an up-or-down vote because, frankly, we are not
going to entertain anything that changes the law. This is just a
technical corrections bill. But if there are things we can do to
accommodate our colleagues, we are happy to do them.
When I say ``we,'' I not only mean the Democratic members of the
committee but the Republican members of the committee. Senator Inhofe
has been working very closely with me, and we feel very good about our
work together. We managed to get our WRDA bill through, the Water
Resources Development Act, in 7 months after it languished 7 years. We
can do it on this too. On that we had to override the President's veto.
The President sent us a little note that he doesn't love this bill;
there is one thing he doesn't like. The fact is, the one thing he
doesn't like was signed off on by Republicans and Democrats on the
Banking Committee. It has to do with how we prioritize transit
projects. The desire of the committee to put this in the bill is a
reiteration of SAFETEA-LU. It really doesn't change anything, it just
stresses it. The President does not like it, but I am hopeful he is not
going to veto. He didn't say he is going to veto. He just said he
didn't appreciate the guidance we are giving him. We don't believe it
is a veto threat. We believe we can get this to his desk.
Think about how good we will feel to know that people who are hurting
can get jobs right now--that is really what it is about right now--and,
frankly, companies that are hurting can get contracts.
Again, this is a no brainer, for want of a better term. This is
something we should do. We should do it quickly. I stand by ready,
willing, and able to get this work done.
I do not see anyone else on the Senate floor wishing to speak. Mr.
President, I will be back when I have to be back.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, here we are. It is 2:15, 2:20. The caucus
has ended for the Republicans, and there is still no decision on the
momentous decision on whether we can legislate on a technical
corrections bill. It is too bad that we cannot move forward; we have so
much to do in this body to meet the needs of the American people. We
need to do something about the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
Agency. We have an equal pay issue we have to deal with. We have a
veterans health matter we have to deal with. We have to deal with a
long list of legislation, and we are being stopped from doing that
today. We were stopped from doing it yesterday. We were stopped from
doing it on Thursday.
I want to be spread on the record that this obstructionism of the
Republicans has been carried to a fine art. They are doing a great job.
They are basically obstructing everything, stalling for time to
maintain the status quo. We have had 7-plus years of this
administration which has brought this country down, not up. We have an
economy that is staggering. We have a housing crisis like we have
rarely seen--maybe during the Great Depression but not since then. We
have a war that is costing us $5,000 a second, and the Republicans want
to maintain the status quo.
The only thing they talk about is let's have the Bush tax cuts go on
a little bit longer. Let's do tort reform. It is no longer a serious
debate on legislation. It is a serious debate on how to keep attention
away from the failed Presidency of George Bush.
We can have a vote at 11:30 tonight, approximately. It takes a
majority vote. That is all it takes to move forward on this
legislation. Until then we can do nothing. We cannot legislate until
the 30 hours is used. In the 65 or 70 filibusters they have conducted
in the Senate--my math is not good enough instantaneously to tell you
how many hours we have eaten up on days like this just doing nothing,
just letting the statutory 30 hours run out--but during that period of
time we really can't do anything. They know that. But I believe the
American people will recognize in November what has happened in the
Senate.
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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that I speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tax Reform

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that
is very important to the hard-working men and women of our great
country; that is, tax reform. I believe the Federal tax burden is
excessive and overly intrusive. Reform of the IRS and the current tax
system is long overdue.
If our Democratic colleagues have their way, the Tax Code will
continue to be excessive and overly intrusive. In recent years it has
become abundantly clear to me that we have lost sight of the fact that
the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund
our Government.
In its current application, the U.S. tax system distorts the economic
decisions of families, of businesses, leading to an inefficient
allocation of resources and hindering economic growth.
Our tax system has become unstable and unpredictable. Frequent
changes to the Tax Code have caused volatility that is harmful to the
economy and creates additional compliance costs. The tax system was
originally intended to be an efficient and simple system designed to
raise revenues for our national defense, social programs, and vital
Government services. However, the current tax system is now so complex
that approximately $150 billion is spent each year by taxpayers and the
Federal Government to make sure that taxes are tallied and paid
correctly. This is an enormous expense and a waste of resources. At
present, the United States has instituted a tax system that thwarts
basic economic decisions, punishes wise and productive investments, and
rewards those who work less and borrow more.
As it stands, the quagmire that is our existing Tax Code penalizes
savings,

[[Page 5947]]

contributes to the ever-increasing cost of health insurance, and
undermines our global competitiveness. More disturbing is the fact that
Americans spend more than 3.5 billion hours doing their taxes, which is
the equivalent of hiring almost 2 million new IRS employees; more than
20 times the agency's current workforce, I might add.
On average, Americans spend the equivalent of more than half of one
work week; that is, 26 hours, on their taxes each year, not to mention
the amount of time they work to pay the taxes themselves. At the end of
the day, despite our lengthy codified tax law, there is no evidence to
suggest that Americans know how much they should be paying in taxes in
any given year or why.
Our Tax Code should aspire to be clear and transparent, rather than
multifarious and convoluted. Everyone should be able to have a basic
understanding of the Tax Code, knowing how and why they are taxed. The
Tax Code's constant phase-ins and phase-outs are a nuisance at best and
a negative force, at worst, in the daily economic lives of American
families and businesses.
Moreover, taxpayers with the same incomes, family situation, and
other key characteristics often face different tax burdens. This
differing treatment creates a perception of unfairness in the Tax Code
and has left many Americans discouraged.
At present, how much or little taxpayers pay in taxes is sometimes
dependent on where they happen to live and the choices made by their
employers.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan, a true visionary in this area,
signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which reduced top marginal individual
rates from 50 percent to 28 percent, increased the standard deduction,
and reduced the top corporate tax from 50 percent to 34 percent. In
doing so, this reform act simplified the Tax Code, broadening the
income tax base, allowing for lower marginal rates, and curtailing the
use of individual tax shelters.
While the 1986 act was a step in the right direction, unfortunately,
it did not produce a long-lasting transformation of our tax system.
Today, our tax system bears little resemblance to the simple low-rate
system promised by the 1986 reform. This is due to constant tweaking
over the years. More than 100 different acts of Congress have made
nearly 15,000 changes to the Tax Code.
Public opinion polls indicate that Americans believe taxpayers should
not have to pay more than one-fourth of their income to the Government.
The current Tax Code hardly reflects this perspective. Depending on the
level of income, the amount of deductions, and the type of family,
one's income can be taxed at 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, or 35
percent.
I support broad-based tax reform and a simplified tax system. It is
my belief that any reform to the current tax system should benefit the
middle class. The vast majority of taxpayers are the middle class, and
they have borne the burden of the current system.
While I was a member of the Colorado Legislature, we implemented a 5-
percent flat tax for Colorado. I believe we should take a similar
approach on the Federal level. While I would be willing to consider a
flat tax or a sales tax or other plans on the Federal level, it is
important that any replacement plan be simple and fair. The replacement
system must provide tax relief for working Americans. It must protect
the rights of taxpayers and reduce our collection abuse. But most
importantly, a new system must eliminate the bias against savings and
investment and against economic growth and job creation.
No one can deny that our Tax Code is in dire need of reform. Its
complexity, lack of clarity, unfairness, and disproportionate influence
on behavior has caused great frustration. Our current Tax Code has been
shaped by goals other than simplicity, by intentions other than helping
the taxpayer plan ahead, and by objectives other than expanding our
economy. Not only has it failed to keep pace with our economy, frequent
changes have made it unstable and unpredictable. Years of hodgepodge
Government interference and ad hoc meddling have left our Tax Code in
shambles. While we cannot change the past, we can learn valuable
lessons from the same and remedy our mistakes.
If we do not take steps to immediately simplify and reform the Tax
Code, it will become more complex, more unfair, and less conducive to
our economy's future growth.
Small reforms are not enough. A total overhaul of the existing system
is the only chance we have of righting this wrong and getting our
economy and our deficit back on track.
Raising taxes is not an option. Our Democratic colleagues seem to
believe that raising taxes or doing nothing about taxes is the best
policy. Just last month, Democrats proposed raising taxes on the
average American family by $2,300 per year. Earlier this year,
Democrats passed a proposal calling for the largest tax hike in
history. If Democrats continue down this path of tax increases and a
do-nothing tax policy, more and more American families will suffer.
It is important to point out that to do nothing on the Tax Code means
a tax increase is going to happen within the next several years. A do-
nothing policy on taxes will allow for the expiration of several key
tax provisions. It will further the reach of the AMT, the alternative
minimum tax. We will see a tax increase of more than $1.2 trillion over
the next 10 years.
At a time of economic uncertainty, raising taxes and taking money out
of the pockets of the American people should not be the goal of the
Congress. We must act now. We have a responsibility to our constituents
and the Nation to resolve the predicament the current tax system has
put us in. If we do not act sooner rather than later in reforming our
tax system, it will continue to become more complex and cumbersome.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeMINT. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak on
the transportation technical corrections bill, which we will be
discussing this week. Later on I will offer a motion to recommit, with
some considerations I would like to address now.
A lot of us were part of moving this through Congress. It is an
important transportation bill, when roads and bridges are in desperate
need of funding for repairs and widening.
There were over 6000 politically directed earmarks in the original
highway bill. Now, the corrections bill involves 500 of those earmarks.
I thought we should talk about the bill and what this means, as far as
transportation in the United States.
First, I want to thank Senators Boxer and Inhofe for all of the work
they have done on transparency on this legislation. While I strongly
believe we should put an end to the practice of earmarking, if the
Senate is going to earmark, it must do it in a transparent manner. I
believe the chairwoman and ranking member have set an example for all
committees in providing information in a way that people can look at it
and debate it. It is all right for us to disagree on whether we like
earmarks. In this case, we can do it with full disclosure of what is
actually in the bill.
The American people deserve to know how their elected representatives
are spending their money, and the way this bill handles earmark
disclosure helps us do just that. The Senators from California and
Oklahoma have disclosed the sponsor, the recipient, and the purpose of
the earmarks in this bill, in addition to letters disclosing that the
sponsors have no financial interests in the particular earmark. I was
also pleased to see that disclosures were made in a timely manner so we
could review them before we began consideration of the legislation.
They have gone beyond the requirements of the Senate rules, and I
applaud them

[[Page 5948]]

for their commitment to transparency. I hope the other committees are
equally committed to transparency.
My colleagues have suggested on the floor that this bill is needed so
States can move forward with planning and construction of authorized
projects from the last highway reauthorization bill. As with all large
bills, there were typos and other errors in this bill, and the
technical corrections bill we are discussing this week was designed to
correct those technical errors and problems. I think that is something,
obviously, we need oftentimes to do with most of our legislation. But
instead of correcting the errors from the last reauthorization bill,
the committee decided to rewrite public law and add contract authority
as well as add to spending levels for certain projects, essentially
adding new earmarks to the bill.
The President's statement of administrative policy regarding this
technical corrections bill contains strong language critical of this
legislation, and let me quote some from that SAP.

The administration notes with strong concern that the
majority of the bill is devoted to earmarks. The bill
modifies hundreds of earmarks from a bill that passed in
2005, effectively creating new earmarks, including a stand-
alone section that would provide mandatory funding for
magnetically levitating rail. The effort through H.R. 1195 to
modify these earmarks from an authorization that passed only
three years ago is a further reflection of those
inefficiencies. Therefore, the Administration urges that
these provisions be removed from the bill.

That is effectively what my motion will address when we offer it
later in the week.
Again quoting from the administration's position on this bill:

The administration urges Congress to restrict the bill to
true technical changes. For example, in addition to those
noted above, both the Senate-proposed substitute and the
underlying bill contain substantive changes to statutory
provisions regarding waiver procedures for Buy America
requirements that should be removed from the bill because
they are not technical corrections. In addition, section 104
of the substitute would repeal section 111(d) of title 23 of
the U.S. Code, which allows idling reduction facilities at
public rest areas in Interstate rights-of-way. This provision
is a policy change, not a technical amendment. Repealing this
section of the U.S. Code would eliminate a beneficial
initiative first proposed by this administration.

We have heard for the past months, and will continue to hear today,
that Members of Congress know what is best in their districts--know
better than some unelected Federal bureaucrat. If a Member of Congress
knows what is best for their district, then why are we debating a 138-
page so-called technical corrections package? I suppose some of these
are drafting errors, and I do not deny there should always be room for
some error in the legislative process. But page after page of
corrections does not speak well for our whole earmarking process.
The 1982 highway bill had only 10 earmarks. That number rose to 538
in 1991, and 1,800 in 1998. The SAFETEA-LU highway authorization bill
we are talking about today contained an inexcusable 6,000 earmarks, at
a cost of well over $20 billion and now nearly 500 changes in the
technical corrections package. A 2007 report by the Department of
Transportation Office of Inspector General, requested by Senator Tom
Coburn, found that DOT earmarks have increased in number by 1,150
percent from 1996 to 2005--an incredible increase--and, as we can see,
a number that has been very difficult for us to manage effectively here
in the Congress.
This administration has projected that the highway trust fund will
have a negative balance of $3.2 billion by 2009 if we continue on the
path of outspending the receipts in this account. So piling on the
additional authorization levels to projects in this technical
corrections bill will only further deplete the highway account and
cause the highway trust fund to be bankrupt sooner than projected.
I know the case has been made that this technical corrections bill
does not increase the overall amount, but as we went back through this
and found numerous earmarks that were no longer needed or even wanted,
instead of moving that money to savings, we moved it to earmarks, and
new earmarks, and to add to additional earmarks at a time when we need
to be trying to save money to overcome the projected deficit. Congress
needs to take a timeout and examine the country's infrastructure
priorities instead of relying solely on Members of Congress
transportation earmarks.
Of most concern is that many of the earmarks requested and funded in
highway authorization bills are neither the most effective nor
efficient use of funds. Many of them, such as an earmark for renovating
the Apollo Theater, have nothing to do with transportation. Senators
and House Members have picked particular projects for funding that they
know will result in their gaining political support. They will get more
votes in their reelection campaigns for bringing home the bacon, but
funding will be redirected from highway projects where it is most
needed.
This is why I have proposed this motion to recommit, that will send
this bill back to the committee and require that the bill be reported
back to the Senate with an amendment that eliminates any provision in
the bill that increases spending for earmarks that are contained in the
SAFETEA bill. Increasing spending for existing earmarks is simply not a
technical correction, and such provisions do not belong in this
legislation, that is intended to only correct the technical aspects of
the bill.
Here are a few examples of provisions in this bill that are not
technical corrections but are actually inserting new earmarks into law
or significantly increasing funding for existing earmarks.
Page 18 amends an earmark in current law that provides $800,000 for
an intersection project in Pennsylvania by striking the $800,000
designation and increasing the earmark to $2.4 million. That is not a
technical correction.
On page 19, we amend an earmark in current law that provides Federal
funds for widening two blocks of Poplar Street from Park Avenue to 13th
Street in Williamson County, IL, by striking that description and
inserting the following new earmark, which is to construct a connector
road from Rushing Drive north to Grand Avenue in Williamson County. It
is not a technical correction. It is a new project and it is the
elimination of another one.
Page 22 amends an earmark in current law that provides $800,000 to
widen State Road 80 in Henderson County, FL, by striking the $800,000
figure and inserting $1.6 million. We double the earmark amount.
Page 29 amends an earmark in current law that provides $2.7 million
for upgrades to an interchange in Pennsylvania by striking the $2.7
million amount and increasing the earmark to $3.2 million.
Page 35 amend a New York earmark in current law that provides $4
million for Miller Highway improvements by striking the existing
earmark and inserting the following new earmark: pedestrian paths,
stairs, seating, landscaping, lighting, and other transportation
enhancement activities along Riverside Boulevard and at Riverside Park
South. This is not a technical correction, and it is one of the reasons
we are not rebuilding and improving and maintaining bridges in America,
because we are focused on things that are not basic infrastructure.
Pages 63 and 64 amend a New York earmark in current law that provides
$500,000 for design and construction of an access road to Plattsburgh
International Airport by striking this description and inserting the
following new earmark: preparation, demolition, disposal, and site
restoration of Alert Facility on Access Road, Plattsburgh International
Airport.
So we found we didn't need the money in one area, but we found a new
area, instead of saving it, as we apparently need to do to keep the
Highway Trust Fund on the path of solvency.
The most glaring example of a nontechnical correction made by this
bill is the MAGLEV section, which provides $90 million over 2 years in
mandatory spending for a MAGLEV rail project from Nevada to California.
Under current law, this project was simply between two cities in
Nevada, but this technical corrections bill paves the way for extending
this

[[Page 5949]]

project all the way to California and leaves the Federal Government on
the hook for paying the price tag.
How will this project expand Federal spending? Well, first, it jams
all the funding into the last 2 years, which increases the baseline
from $30 million in 2009 to $45 million. The way we fund things here is
based on year-to-year baselines. It turns the funding from an
authorization to direct spending. In the original bill, it allows the
funding of a project. Now it requires the funding of a project. It
extends the Federal project from Primm, NV, to Anaheim, CA, and it
involves the Federal Government in a dubious construction project that
will create an unwanted transportation mode, the cost of which will
likely expand considerably.
Along this same route, a private company has raised billions of
dollars to build a high-speed rail corridor from Nevada to California
without any taxpayer money. Our role in Government should be to make
the private sector work, not to replace it and to compete with it with
taxpayer dollars.
In addition to increasing Federal funding, this provision inserts the
Government into a business that appears to need no propping up from
taxpayers. Press reports indicate that the MAGLEV route is nearly
identical, as I mentioned before, to a completely privately financed
rail project, which is estimated to cost between $3 billion and $5
billion. This legislation would use taxpayer dollars to fund a
government project that is in direct competition with an existing
privately funded effort.
The Government does not need to be replacing private sector
involvement. In 2005, the Los Angeles Times had this to say about
MAGLEV:

The long-running debate over MAGLEV trains is a battle
between faith and reason. They have to rely on faith because
there is very little evidence of the practicality of these
systems. Only one commercial high-speed MAGLEV train exists,
covering a 19-mile stretch from Shanghai to Pudong
International Airport. Why spend so much money, especially if
it's from taxpayers, when you might get more bang for the
buck out of cheaper alternatives? That the Primm line has
gotten this far is a tribute to the power and determination
of the Senate Majority Leader, who undoubtedly sees MAGLEV as
promising a new transportation system for pork.

The Associated Press also reported a few weeks ago that the country
of Germany has canceled its initiative to build a MAGLEV link to the
Munich airport, citing escalating costs. Germany's transportation
minister told reporters that it was ``not possible to finance the
project'' since the cost had more than doubled.
I guess anything is possible when it is taxpayer money, but, clearly,
building an unproven experimental project, where private money is
already accomplishing the same thing, does not make very much sense. In
this transportation bill, not only will this experimental rail
provision eventually cost billions in Federal funding and insert the
Government into the private market, where it doesn't belong, it would
most likely also be bad for consumers. According to my last check on
the Internet, the nonstop flights from Los Angeles to Las Vegas are 1
hour 10 minutes and cost only $118 for a round trip. That is $59 each
way.
I ask my colleagues how much these MAGLEV trips will cost. Are we
absolutely certain it will cost less than $59 each way? If not, why
would not consumers fly?
I would hazard a guess here that if we were asking Members of the
Senate to invest their own personal money in this project, not one
would reach for their wallet. But this is taxpayers' money we are
spending on something none of us would do as individuals.
Even the administration has weighed in on this provision stating that
the bill modifies hundreds of earmarks from a bill that passed in 2005,
effectively creating new earmarks, including a stand-alone section that
would provide mandatory funding for magnetic levitating rail. The
administration urges these provisions be removed from the bill.
We are not talking about technical corrections. These provisions
increase funding for existing earmarks and create new earmarks.
Proponents of this legislation will argue that the bill spends no new
Federal dollars and, in fact, even saves taxpayers a few million
dollars. While that is true, the bill accomplishes this by rescinding
funds left in the Treasury that were never used by a few earmarks
previously authorized by Congress. However, it is clear to me that this
bill is just another way for Congress to create new earmarks, increase
spending for existing earmarks without actually appearing to be doing
just that.
In addition, by shifting existing funding from one earmark to be used
for a completely new earmark, this bill also creates new projects which
now rely on the Federal Government to continue their funding in the
future. In the long run, this legislation encourages wasteful
Washington spending through the broken process of earmarking.
Here is an example of a true technical correction included in this
legislation. On page 24 of the bill, there is a provision that would
strike the word ``country'' and insert the word ``county'' in an
earmark for ``New County road on Whidbey Island'' in Washington State.
The current law refers to this road as ``New Country Road,'' which was
a mistake, and this bill would correct that error by inserting the word
``county.'' Clearly, this is a true technical correction and represents
the spirit of what this bill was intended to accomplish, which is to
correct technical errors contained in current law.
Another argument we hear is that earmarking Federal tax dollars is
our ``constitutional obligation.'' Our colleague, Dr. Coburn, wrote an
excellent article entitled ``Founders vs. Pork'' addressing this bogus
claim. I will not read the article in its entirety, but I commend it to
all my colleagues. It contains some excellent quotations which I will
share.
Thomas Jefferson, in a 1796 letter to James Madison regarding
federally funded local projects, said that ``[O]ther revenues will soon
be called into their aid, and it will be the source of eternal scramble
among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State;
and they will always get the most who are the meanest.''
In a 1792 letter to Alexander Hamilton conveying what he believed to
be the public's perception of government, George Washington cited
worries about the ``increase in the mass of the debt,'' which had
``furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the
legislature, as turns the balance between the honest voters[.]''
Hamilton, who famously clashed with Jefferson and Madison on fiscal
matters, responded that ``[e]very session the question whether the
annual provision should be continued, would be an occasion of
pernicious caballing and corrupt bargaining.''
The importance of transparency in Government operations was also
recognized by Jefferson. In 1808, he wrote:

The same prudence, which, in private life, would forbid our
paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the
disposition of public moneys.

As I said before, I doubt very seriously any Member of this Senate
would invest their own money in an unproven technology over a route
where there is already going to be private competition.
Jefferson also astutely recognized that large amounts of spending
would inevitably lead to outside efforts to redirect that money. He
wrote in 1801 about the need ``to reform the waste of public money, and
thus drive away the vultures who prey upon it[.]''
George Washington noted in 1792 that no mischief is ``so afflicting
and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature.''
Congressional approval ratings, as we all know, are now at record
lows because taxpayers do not believe we are being honest or open about
how we spend their money.
One might argue that earmarking is a simpler system. There is really
no meddling by bureaucrats, no cost-benefit analysis, no hearing just a
big pie that is sliced up into pieces of varying sizes, with the senior
Members getting the biggest slice. But this is no way to run a
government or a country.

[[Page 5950]]

This bill proves that the so-called simplicity of the system is not
all it is cracked up to be. One of the changes in this bill involves
removing an earmark that was not even wanted but was secretly put into
a bill after the bill had already passed. Now, that is the sort of
technical correction we should be passing right now. Why did it take so
long to identify an earmark that was not wanted or needed? Fortunately,
in this bill, we could remove it. Senator Coburn has an amendment that
will force an investigation of this bizarre process by which an earmark
finds its way into a bill that already has passed. I look forward to
the findings. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
I applaud the committee for providing earmark disclosure, more
earmark disclosure than we have seen out of most committees. Senators
Boxer and Inhofe are to be commended for their effort they have made to
comply with the letter and the spirit of the law. As I said, I hope all
the committees will follow example. However, this bill does not have a
committee report. In that sense, Senators have been denied the tools we
customarily rely on to decipher massive catchall bills such as this.
For example, without the ``changes in existing Law'' document, which is
contained in all committee reports, we are theoretically supposed to go
through each earmark and try to figure out what it is amending. Since
it is almost certain that few Members will actually do this beyond
projects they inserted in the bill personally, the bill is largely a
series of meaningless paragraphs. For example, section 105 of the bill
is 63 pages containing 386 earmarks. These earmarks contain such
illuminating descriptions as ``In item number 753 by striking
$2,700,000 and inserting $3,200,000.'' That is all we know unless we go
back to the original bill to figure it out. The earmark description for
this one simply says it is from Bill Shuster and gives the SAFETEA-LU
section it amends. Even with the list of earmark descriptions, one has
no idea what this amendment does without going to the underlying bill.
When you look at the law, you see that it has to do with ``Widening of
Rt. 22 and SR 26 in Huntingdon. Upgrades to the interchange at U.S. Rt.
22 and SR 26.'' I still have no idea why this project needs a $500,000
plus-up, but at least I have a general idea what the project is. But,
again, I do not expect that any of my colleagues actually looked up
this earmark.
This bill highlights the fact that this is a terrible way to write
legislation, where we all decide the different projects we want and
force them in a single bill. This bill demonstrates to me and the
American people that earmarking is out of control and that the process
is inefficient.
We are spending time on the Senate floor to pass 138 pages of
``fixes'' to mistakes and errors relating to existing earmarks. I say
to my colleagues, we have much more pressing needs that deserve our
time and attention, such as providing health insurance to the millions
of uninsured across this Nation, making health care more affordable,
and passing the FISA reauthorization bill to protect our homeland.
Instead, we are spending precious time fixing earmarks--hardly a high
priority with taxpayers who are disgusted with the way their hard-
earned tax dollars are being wasted now.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, it does not
strike any earmarks that are in law. It allows all the technical
corrections that are included in this bill, but it simply says we would
eliminate any new earmarks in this bill and any increases in existing
earmarks. I think that is what a technical corrections bill should be.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I intend to speak for a few minutes on
behalf of the committee in response to the comments made by the Senator
from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Georgia then be recognized for up to 5 minutes to talk as in morning
business and then followed by the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague from South
Carolina for acknowledging that the process that was used on this
technical corrections bill was a very open process, one in which all
the changes were open for public review and scrutiny, well identified,
and a process in which any Member or any person could evaluate the
merits or demerits of what we were attempting to do.
Second, let me point out that this is a technical corrections bill--
and I am going to respond to one of the projects specifically that the
Senator from South Carolina has talked about--but that it is a normal
process when we pass a large bill to go through a technical corrections
process in order to correct mistakes that were made or clarify or, as
priorities change, to deal with the regions to make sure the Federal
programs are properly targeted to the needs. This is a technical
corrections bill.
Third, let me point out that the regions have come to us to ask for
clarifications or modifications of projects within the area, not
increasing the costs. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for
pointing out that this legislation does not increase costs; in fact, it
will save some money. I appreciate him pointing that out.
So we are in agreement on all those points. We are going to save
money. It corrects mistakes that were made, and it deals with regional
priorities that have been requested of us, consistent with prior
authorizations of Congress.
I point out one project, and that is the maglev project. I do not
want to debate the merits or demerits of the maglev project because I
do not think that would be appropriate on a technical corrections bill.
But where the Senator from South Carolina is incorrect is that this is
a technical correction of prior actions of Congress. It provides
contract authority. That is what we intended to do in the SAFETEA-LU
Act. So this is not anything new in maglev. The areas that are involved
were the same areas that were previously identified. It does not expand
the project and makes technical corrections as far as contract
authority.
What the Senator from South Carolina is debating is the merits of
maglev, and this is the wrong bill on which to debate that. By the
Senator's own admission, this is a technical corrections bill, and we
should just be talking about whether the language is what was intended
by Congress in its previous actions, and clearly it was, to make sure
we do it right based on previous actions.
I hope the Senator from South Carolina will heed his own advice; that
is, let's make the technical corrections bill deal with those types of
issues. And I am afraid his amendment would not. As now explained to
us, he wants to eliminate some of these projects, and that is not the
purpose of a technical corrections bill. I can understand Members being
concerned about that approach. I am proud of the work of the committee.
The committee did identify those--and it is relatively few when you
consider how many authorizations are in the SAFETEA-LU Act--to clarify
and, in some cases, to make typo corrections and things such as that.
It is vitally important to move this bill forward so we can move
forward on vital transportation projects that affect every one of our
States. I urge our colleagues to support the committee and support the
process, the very open and fair and transparent process that was used
by the committee in developing the changes that are in this
legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Jackie Robinson

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a seminal
moment in our Nation's history. On this day in 1947, Jackie Robinson
broke the color barrier to Major League Baseball after years of
segregation.
Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born in 1919 to a family of sharecroppers
in Cairo, GA. Cairo, the home of the syrup makers, is a small town in
south Georgia located about 35 miles from my hometown of Moultrie.
As you can imagine, Jackie was very talented and did extremely well
at

[[Page 5951]]

sports. At UCLA, Jackie became the first athlete to win varsity letters
in four sports--football, basketball, baseball, and track. He was even
named All-American in football.
Jackie enlisted in the U.S. Army in World War II, and following his
discharge in 1944, he played the season in the Negro Baseball League
and a couple of years in minor league ball.
In 1947, following Jackie's outstanding performance in the minor
leagues, Brooklyn Dodgers vice president Branch Rickey decided it was
time to integrate Major League Baseball, which had not had an African-
American player since 1889. When Jackie first donned a Brooklyn Dodgers
uniform, he led the way to the integration of professional athletics in
America.
In his first year, he hit 12 home runs and helped the Dodgers win the
National League pennant. That year, Robinson led the National League in
stolen bases and was also selected Rookie of the Year. Robinson
succeeded in putting racial conflict and prejudice aside to show the
world what a talented individual he was. His success in the major
leagues opened the door for other African-American players.
Jackie Robinson himself became a vocal champion for African-American
athletes, civil rights and other social and political causes. After
baseball, Robinson became active in business and continued working as
an activist for social change. He was the first African-American
inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame and, in 1997, his number was
retired by Major League Baseball.
I can recall, as a small boy, being a Brooklyn Dodgers fan. The main
reason was because my older brother was a New York Yankees fan and the
perennial World Series game was between the Dodgers and the Yankees, so
it was a natural rivalry that my brother and I have. I have very vivid
memories of watching Jackie Robinson play ball on TV and having great
admiration and respect for him as an athlete. It was Jackie Robinson
who paved the way for so many great athletes today.
Little did he know, back then in 1947, that he would be followed by
the likes of Larry Doby, Willie Mays, and my good friend, Hank Aaron.
But what a great inspiration he has been for all of America. Today, I
honor the man who stood boldly against those who resisted racial
equality, and I acknowledge the profound influence of one man's life on
the American culture. Jackie Robinson's life and legacy will be
remembered as one of great importance in American history.
I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from North Dakota
is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if people are by any chance watching the
proceedings of the Senate this afternoon, they may wonder what on Earth
is happening or more likely what is not happening. It has become
customary, when we try to do business in the Senate in recent months,
that we discover there is a filibuster that requires a cloture motion
to be filed on almost anything. On the Senate floor today, as I
understand it, we are on a 30-hour postcloture period on a motion to
proceed to a technical corrections bill. That is almost unbelievable to
me.
It is not unusual. We have had 65 filibusters in this Congress. Why
would someone require a cloture motion to be filed in order to break a
filibuster on a motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill? The
only conceivable reason to do that is to stop the Senate from doing
anything. I guess those who have been doing this in the minority party
have been pretty successful.
Today is tax day, April 15. One might ask, if we were not doing
this--standing around and gnashing our teeth and wiping our brow,
wondering why we can't move this--what would we be doing? If we didn't
have a minority that insists on a motion to proceed, a filibuster, a
cloture motion and 30 hours postcloture, what would we be doing?
We would probably be doing some worthwhile things. It is not that the
underlying bill is not worthwhile, it is. It should be done quickly and
easily. It is a technical corrections bill. But what, for example,
could we do?
I thought, because it is April 15, a day a lot of people recognize as
a day of obligation to pay their taxes, I would mention perhaps a few
of the things we could be doing on the floor of the Senate if we had a
bit of cooperation and if we could get the minority party to agree--and
in every one of these cases, certainly we could not. But let me
describe what we might do, just on the Tax Code.
The Government Accountability Office found that 59 of the 100 largest
publicly-traded Federal contractors--that is companies that did work
for the Federal Government in 2001--had established hundreds of
subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes to
the United States of America. They want all the benefits you can get
from being a contractor for the Government, but they do not want to pay
taxes to this country.
I discovered this some long while ago. It actually comes from an
enterprising reporter named Dave Evans with Bloomberg News. I mention
that because it is important. He discovered that in this building in
the Cayman Islands, a 5-story white building on Church Street, there
are 12,748 corporations that call it home. They are not there. It is
their post office mailing address for the purpose of saying they are in
the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
If we were not spending our time at parade rest, or posing as potted
plants because the minority doesn't want to move ahead on anything, not
even a motion to proceed on a technical corrections bill, are there
other things we can do? We could solve this, couldn't we? We could say:
If you are going to run your income through a subsidiary in a tax-haven
country to avoid your obligation to the United States, maybe you don't
need to contract with the Federal Government. Maybe you don't need to
get the Federal Government's business. Or perhaps on tax day, we might
say we will close this tax loophole--just like that. If you are not
doing substantive business in a tax-haven country, we will not
recognize you as having gone to a tax-haven country, and you will pay
taxes as if you never left our country.
If we were not seeing all these interminable delays, perhaps we would
pass legislation that I have offered previously, and that is to say to
American companies: If you shut your manufacturing plant, fire your
workers and move your operations overseas, you are not going to get a
tax break anymore. Someone might say: Do they get a tax break for that?
They sure do. Let me give an example. I assume that almost everyone has
ridden in a Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon. It was made for 110 years in
Illinois, in Chicago, IL. Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon was created by
an immigrant who came here and created a big business.
The thing is, after 110 years the Radio Flyer Little Red Wagons are
not manufactured here. They are all gone. They are in China. Every
Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon is now manufactured in China. By the way,
the company got a tax break to move the jobs to China.
I have spoken often on the floor about Huffy bicycles--20 percent of
the American bicycle market and made in Ohio by workers who were
earning $11 an hour plus benefits. Not any more. They all got fired in
Ohio and all these jobs were moved to Shenzhen, China. Huffy bicycles
are made by people who work 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 30
cents an hour.
Do you know what the workers at Huffy bicycle did the last day of
work, as their plants were closed down? As they pulled out of their
parking spaces, the workers left a pair of empty shoes where their car
used to park. It was their poignant way to say: You can move our jobs
to China, but you are not going to fill our shoes. This company
received a tax break for moving jobs to China.
Fruit of the Loom underwear--everybody knows about Fruit of the Loom
underwear. You remember, they used to do commercials with the dancing
grapes. I don't know who would dress up as a grape and dance, but I
guess they got paid to do that, so you have commercials of dancing
grapes advertising Fruit of the Loom underwear.

[[Page 5952]]

The problem is, there is no Fruit of the Loom underwear made in America
anymore because they all went offshore to be produced and the company
got a tax break to do it. Why? Because this specific company did that?
No, because companies that shut down their American manufacturing
plants and move their jobs overseas get a tax break from this country.
It is the most pernicious thing I have ever seen. I tried four times to
correct it on the floor of the Senate. I ask people to look up the
votes and see who is standing up for American jobs and American
workers.
Perhaps we could do that on tax day, maybe fix that problem and say:
At the very least, let's stop subsidizing, through the Tax Code, the
shipping of American jobs overseas.
Here is another thing we could probably do if the minority weren't
requiring cloture motions and engaging in 65 filibusters, which take up
dead time.
I should point out for anybody watching or listening, nothing can be
done during this period. We are in a 30-hour postcloture period on a
motion to proceed--not even on the bill, on a motion to proceed to a
technical corrections bill. So this 30 hours is dead time, designed by
the minority because they do not want us to do anything we probably
could do on this tax day.
We have a Tax Code that allows almost unbelievable tax breaks to some
companies. This happens to be a streetcar in Germany owned by an
American company. Why? Because they are experts in streetcars in
Germany? No, because they get big tax breaks when they do this.
This is a sewer system in Germany. Wachovia Bank, a U.S. company, was
buying sewer systems in Germany. Think of that--do you think it is
because they are experts in sewer systems? No. Do you think they wanted
to buy a sewer system and move it to America? No, not at all. They want
to buy sewer systems in Europe so they can avoid taxes in the United
States, because if you buy a sewer system from a European city and you
now own it, you can actually depreciate it and then lease it back to
the city and everybody makes money--except the American taxpayers and
the Federal Government loses money. Maybe, since it is tax day, we
could shut down this tax scam, although the President has threatened to
veto legislation that shuts down these kind of tax scams, for reasons I
don't understand.
But we could try. We could decide, you know, if working folks pay
taxes, maybe everybody else can pay taxes. Perhaps we can pass a piece
of legislation that says those on Wall Street who are getting what is
called carried interest, some of the wealthiest people in the United
States, should pay a higher income tax rate than 15 percent. Almost
everybody pays a higher income tax rate than 15 percent, but those who
are making the biggest money on Wall Street in the form of what is
called carried interest, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
They get a 15-percent tax rate. Perhaps we could change that.
Perhaps another thing we could do this afternoon, if we were not
forced to 30 hours of dead time, is we could deal with what the
Internal Revenue Service is doing by farming out tax collections that
need to be made--these are people who owe taxes--to debt collection
agencies in the private sector. This is going to be hard for anybody to
believe or understand, but here is what they have done. This
administration is so anxious to privatize and farm out everything, they
have gone into the Internal Revenue Service and said let's farm out
these collections of taxes owed, so they have contracted with a couple
of companies. The problem is that this privatization program lost $50
million in its first year and is expected to lose more this year.
The IRS's private revenue collection target for the current fiscal
year was $88 million. But they now project that the program will
collect only $23 million. After excluding commissions, ongoing
operational costs and capital investments, the IRS will still be $31
million in red this year.
It is unbelievable. How can the Internal Revenue Service contract
with a company that is going to lose money collecting taxes? I have a
piece of legislation that says stop it. Maybe we could work on that and
pass that legislation today--see if we could find some deep reservoir
of common sense. The National Taxpayer Advocate who works at the IRS
has said: Had that money been spent for collectors at the IRS, they
would have raised $1.4 billion. Instead, they invested $71 million to
use private collectors and returned just $32 million in 2007. So they
missed it by about $1.368 billion. Isn't that incredible?
Does anybody care? Apparently not. We are in 30 hours dead time on a
motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill, guaranteeing nothing
can be done on the floor of the Senate.
There are a couple of other things we might consider when we are
thinking what could we do this afternoon in this dead time.
This is a photograph of Mr. Efriam Diveroli. He is the chief
executive officer of a firm that received $300 million in U.S. Army
contracts. He's 22 years old. His dad actually started a shell company
back in the 1990s, and then he took it over. He said he was the only
employee, except it lists a vice president. The vice president is a
massage therapist. He is 25 years old.
So here we have a 22-year-old chief executive officer and a 25-year-
old massage therapist running a company in Miami. They got $300 million
from the U.S. Department of Defense to provide ammunition to the Afghan
fighters.
Let me describe where they are. They are in this building. No, they
do not own this building; they are in a little part of this building
with an unmarked door. So you have a 22-year-old and a 25-year-old
massage therapist working out of an unmarked office in Miami, FL; Miami
Beach, FL, and they are supposed to, with $300 million, provide
ammunition to the Afghan fighters on behalf of the U.S. Defense
Department.
Here is a picture of the ammunition. Some of it is ammunition from
China from the 1960s. You can see what it looks like. And the Afghan
fighters were saying: Wait a second. What are you sending us? Bullets
that do not fire? Now, I must say, the New York Times deserves some
real credit. Three people wrote this story. The New York Times, I can
tell from the story, they traveled around the world to get the details.
Now, we did not do it. We should have. We should have done it in
something called a Truman committee. The bipartisan Truman committee
was created in the Second World War, run by Harry Truman. By the way,
it started with $15,000 and has saved the American taxpayer $15 billion
going after waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting.
Three times we have voted on a Truman committee in the Congress, and
three times it has been turned back by the minority.
Now, I will come later and give a longer presentation about defense
contracting and the most unbelievable waste, fraud, and abuse in the
history of this country. But we do not need more than the picture of
the president of this company who got $300 million.
The question I started with today is, What could we be doing in 30
hours of dead time, if the minority had not required that there be a
cloture petition and had not effectively filibustered on a motion to
proceed to a bill that is going to get overwhelming support? I do not
understand it.
Finally, we probably could do something about the price of oil or
gasoline while we are on the Senate floor during this dead time if we
were not prevented by the minority, prevented by a President's
threatened veto pen.
Oil and gas. Well, look, today is Tuesday, and oil is at $113 a
barrel. Some are going to the bank with a big smile on their face,
particularly the large major integrated oil companies because they are
making a massive amount of profit. Then other people are wondering: Do
I have enough in my gas tank to be able to drive to work tomorrow? How
am I going to do that?
So while all of this is going on today, the Federal Government is
putting 70,000 barrels of sweet, light crude oil underground in the
Strategic Reserve. And they are going to do it every single day all
year long, 70,000 barrels a day, stuck underground.

[[Page 5953]]

Now, the Strategic Reserve is a decent idea. It is 97 percent filled.
Why on Earth would we, when oil has hit $113 a barrel, continue,
through this Bush and Cheney administration, to put oil underground and
thereby put upward pressure on gasoline prices and oil prices? It makes
no sense at all.
So, perhaps, were the dead time not required by the minority, we
could work on that, or perhaps with respect to the price of gasoline
and oil, we could work on increasing the margin requirements for those
who are speculating in the futures markets.
The commodities futures market, especially for oil, is an
unbelievable carnival of speculation. Do you know that when you buy
stocks, there is a 50 percent margin requirement. But if you want to
buy oil, God bless you, it is only 5 to 7 percent. You want to control
100,000 barrels of oil tomorrow, $7,000 will do that. That is the
margin. So, as a result, you have unbelievable speculation in these
markets driving up the price well above that which the fundamentals of
oil supply and demand would justify.
Perhaps we can do something about saying to the exchanges: There must
be increased margin requirements to stop this speculation hurting our
country. It is driving up the price of oil, driving up the price of
gasoline in a manner that is completely unjustified. Stop the
speculation, stop putting 70,000 barrels of sweet light crude
underground every day. Maybe those would be two things we could do when
we are required to file cloture petitions to stop a filibuster on
issues such as a motion to proceed.
I mean it is unbelievable to me that we find ourselves in this
position. There is so much to do, and it is such important work. Yet
here we find ourselves with the American people looking in on the
Senate and wondering: What on Earth are they doing?
Well, what we are doing is what we are required to do by the rules
when one side decides it wants the Senate to stand at parade rest
almost all the time.
We have such big challenges in our country. I have mentioned energy.
I have mentioned the fiscal policy. I have mentioned health care. We
have such big challenges that ought to be our agenda. This country
deserves better, and our agenda is, in my judgment, something on which
the American people expect us to make progress. They do not expect us
to see every single day, in every way, a filibuster on the floor of the
Senate, even on motions to proceed. That is the last thing this
American public should expect from a Congress that ought to come to
work ready to go to work on issues that really matter in peoples' lives
every single day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Middle Class America

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I commend my friend from North Dakota.
He is exactly right. The middle class in our country is in deep
trouble. Some would argue the middle class is collapsing. And the
people of our country are looking to Washington, to us, to get
something done. What they are finding is a filibuster on a corrections
bill and inaction in every single area that faces working people in our
country.
A couple of weeks ago in Vermont we held several town meetings on the
economy. I invited Vermonters to respond to our Web site about what the
collapse of the middle class means to them personally. I think it is
one thing for those of us to give a speech, to use huge numbers, to
talk in an extravagant way; it is another thing to hear directly from
people in terms of what is going on in their lives.
What I promised that I would do, and continue to do, is read some of
these very poignant e-mails I received, mostly from Vermonters, some
from other parts of the country, where people are simply saying: Look,
this is what is going on in my life today. I thought I was in the
middle class, but I no longer am.
So what I want to do is read a few of the e-mails that I received, to
put what we are debating and discussing in a very personal tone, in the
real words of real Americans. This is the collapse of the middle class
as described by ordinary people.
We received an e-mail from an older couple in the State of Vermont.
This is what they wrote. The woman writes:

My husband and I are retired and 65. We would like to have
worked longer, but because of injuries caused at work and the
closing of our factory to go to Canada, we chose to retire
early. Now with oil prices the way they are, we cannot afford
to heat our home unless my husband cuts and splits wood,
which is a real hardship as he has had his back fused and
should not be working most of the day to keep up with the
wood. Not only that, he has to get up two to three times each
night to keep the fire going.
We also have a 2003 car that we only get to drive to get
groceries or go to the doctor or to visit my mother in the
nursing home 3 miles away. It now costs us $80 a month to go
nowhere. We have 42,000 miles on a 5-year-old car. I have
Medicare but I cannot afford prescription coverage unless I
take my money out of an annuity, which is supposed to cover
the house payments when my husband's pension is gone. We also
only eat two meals a day to conserve.

This is a 65-year-old couple in the State of Vermont in the year
2008, and I suspect this story is being told all over America.
Here is another story about a woman who lives in our largest county,
Chittenden County. She writes:

First of all, I am a single mother of a 16-year-old
daughter. I own a condominium. I have worked at the hospital
for 16 years and make a very good salary, in the high $40,000
range. I own a 2005 Honda Civic. I filled up my gas tank
yesterday, and it cost me almost $43. That was at $3.22 a
gallon. If prices stay at that level, it will cost me $160
per month to fill up my gas tank. A year ago, it would cost
me approximately $80 per month. I now have to decide what
errands I really need to run and what things I can do over
the phone or the Internet.
But the other issue is, if I use my cell phone too much
during the month, my bill will increase and that will cost me
more money. I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard
place no matter how hard I try to adjust my budget for the
month. I am watching my purchases in the grocery store and
department stores more closely because of increased prices.
I am not sure that can I afford to take a summer vacation
this year. I usually take a day off during my daughter's
spring vacation so we can go shopping in New Hampshire
somewhere. I have already cancelled those plans for this
year.
I am hoping that I can take a few days off this summer to
go to Maine. We will see how the gas prices are this summer,
but I hear it is going to get worse. Not much hope for
someone on a tight budget.

Here we have somebody who asks nothing more than to be able to take a
few days off with her daughter to go shopping. Somebody who works very
hard cannot even do that because the price of gas is soaring.
Here is another e-mail that comes from a woman living in a small town
in Vermont. This is what she writes:

Yesterday I paid for our latest home heating fuel delivery,
$1,100. I also paid my $2,000 plus credit card balance much
of which bought gas and groceries for the month. My husband
and I are very nervous about what will happen to us when we
are old.
Although we have three jobs between us, and participate in
a 403(B) retirement plan, we have not saved enough for a
realistic post-work life if we survive to our life
expectancy. As we approach the traditional retirement age, we
are slowly paying off our daughter's college tuition loan and
trying to keep our heads above water. We have always lived
frugally. We buy used cars and store-brand groceries, recycle
everything, walk or carpool when possible, and plastic our
windows each fall. Even so, if and when our son decides to
attend college, we will be in deep debt at age 65. P.S.
Please do not use my name. I live in a small town and this is
so embarrassing.

Well, it is not embarrassing. That is the story being told from one
end of this country to the other. People who thought that after working
their entire lives, they would be able to retire with a little bit of
security and a little bit of dignity are now wondering, in fact, if
they will be able to survive at all.
After working your whole life and being frugal, you should not have
to retire in debt dependent upon a credit card.
The e-mails we receive from people who are young, middle age and old,
each in its own way is a work of poetry because it comes from people's
hearts. It is poignant. It is true. This is what a younger person from
Vermont writes:

I am 23 years old. I have about $33K of education debt +
$12K of credit card debt and

[[Page 5954]]

only make about $26K a year + benefits. I barely make enough
to support myself and whenever unexpected expenses come up I
end up having to use credit to cover them. I feel like I will
never catch up and now everything is getting even more
expensive; it seems hopeless. Meanwhile I listen to the news
and how the rich are getting richer and it is making me hate
this country. I am not an economics expert but I know that
things could be done differently to help people like me who
work hard and get little in return instead of rewarding those
who have the ability to use their money to make more money.

We heard Senator Dorgan talk about huge tax breaks that go to some of
the wealthiest people, people who don't pay their taxes because they
move to the Cayman Islands and set up phony front offices. This writer,
who may not have a PhD. in economics, hit it right on the head. This
young man and these old people are the people we should start worrying
about, not the wealthiest people who are having it very good.
Let me talk briefly about a woman. This is another piece of reality.
She writes:

As a couple with one child, earning about $55000/year, we
have been able to eat out a bit, buy groceries and health
insurance, contribute to our retirement funds and live a
relatively comfortable life financially. We've never
accumulated a lot of savings, but our bills were always paid
on time and we never had any interest on our credit card.
Over the last year, even though we've tightened our belts
(not eating out much, watching purchases at the grocery
store, not buying ``extras'' like a new TV, repairing the
washer instead of buying a new one . . . ), and we find
ourselves with over $7000 of credit card debt and trying to
figure out how to pay for braces for our son!
I work 50 hours per week to help earn extra money to catch
up, but that also takes a toll on the family life--not
spending those 10 hours at home with my husband and son makes
a big difference for all of us. My husband hasn't had a raise
in 3 years, and his employer is looking to cut out any extra
benefits they can to lower their expenses, which will
increase ours!

Here is a woman who has to work longer hours in order to try to catch
up, and she can't spend time with her husband and son, which is what
her life is about. How many millions of people are in the same boat?
What is not usually talked about on the floor of the Senate is the
fact that here in the United States, our people work longer hours than
do the people of any other industrialized country. Not talked about
terribly often is that to make ends meet now, in the vast majority of
middle-class life, you need both the husband and the wife working long
hours. Despite those two incomes, people have less disposable income
today than 30 years ago in a one-income family. But when you talk about
the collapse of the middle class, one of the manifestations of much of
it is that people have to claw and scratch and work so hard that their
family lives deteriorate. In this case, a woman cannot even spend the
time she would like with her son and husband.
Here are a few more e-mails. This comes from a veteran from the State
of Vermont:

The real killer is the price of heating fuel.
Up here in northern Vermont we need heat in the winter.
With a Military Pension I make too much to get any
assistance. We got a 2.8% pension increase in January, and
the price of heating fuel has increased by about 50%. We have
to cut back on food in order to stay warm. Thank you.

Somebody trying to live on a military pension that goes up 2.8
percent, the price of home heating fuel soars, not making it.
This is another short e-mail we received:

The company I work for has just announced a ``raise
freeze'' which means not even a cost of living increase can
be expected this year . . . this will be tough for us, as we
were counting on at least a cost of living increase in a year
where the cost of living has surely increased, be it
groceries, fuel, wood, gasoline, etc!

Let me finish by reading an e-mail from another young Vermonter:

As a graduating law student I am particularly concerned
with the potential reduction of jobs available to me. I am
leaving school with a great amount of debt in student loans
and credit cards and entering the uncertain job market.
I currently pay a tremendous amount of money in rent. I
would like to work in poverty law but those jobs only pay
about 36,000 so it is unlikely going to happen.

Here is an example of a young man who goes to law school, wants to
work in poverty law, but because his debts are so high and the interest
rate on that debt is so high, he no longer has a choice of careers.
This is happening to young people all over the country.
The middle class in America is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. The
gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider. Today
we have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of
any major country on Earth. We are the only major country on this
planet without a national health care program. The cost of college
education is very high, while the oil companies make huge profits. Our
people cannot afford to fill up their gas tanks.
As Senator Dorgan said, the time is long overdue for this Congress to
start focusing on the real issues facing ordinary Americans. The time
is now for us to develop the courage to stand up to the big money
interests, the 35,000 lobbyists who surround us every day, the big
campaign contributors who want benefits for the wealthy and the
powerful. We have an obligation to stand up for the middle class. I
hope we can begin doing that as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Tax Filing Day

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my colleagues on this side of the
aisle have spoken today about tax issues because today is the day for
filing income tax. I think it is appropriate that we remind each other
about a lot of tax issues that are very important that we have to
decide this year, next year, and the following, or we are going to have
the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. We are taking
the opportunity on April 15 to talk about those.
When I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked to get
through a narrowly divided Senate the biggest tax cut in a generation.
We reduced income tax rates for individual taxpayers. We created the
first ever 10-percent bracket for lower income workers so they didn't
have to pay as much tax as they would at the 15-percent bracket on
their first dollars earned. We reduced the marriage penalty because we
don't think one ought to pay more taxes because they are married. We
created a deduction for college tuition. We also passed a deduction for
schoolteachers buying supplies for their classrooms. I could go on with
a lot of other provisions in those tax bills, but they have all had
good economic consequences. We ought to consider that they should not
sunset.
Now I and others are at work to make sure this tax relief is
extended. If it is allowed to expire, Americans will be hit with the
biggest tax increase in history. That is one thing. But it is quite
another thing that this is going to happen without a vote of Congress.
In other words, on that magic date of sunset, we go back to levels of
taxation as they were before January 1, 2001, and we automatically,
without a vote of Congress, end up with the biggest tax increase in the
history of the country.
People say: Well, we are going to continue existing tax law. They
need to be intellectually honest and tell people that when they are
doing that, they are going to allow the biggest tax increase in the
history of the country.
We can intervene. We need to intervene. It is my goal to intervene.
The last thing families need, the last thing small businesses need, the
last thing investors need is a tax increase. But that is what will
happen this year and in 2010, if Congress doesn't act.
Last week the Senate demonstrated support for extending current law
tax relief without offsets, when it voted on energy tax incentives,
things that are meant to make the United States more energy efficient
and less dependent upon foreign sources of energy. That same approach
demonstrated last week, extending current tax law relief without
offsets, should rightfully apply to other expiring tax provisions,
including the research and development tax credit and the individual
tax provisions I have already mentioned. I will be working hard to see
that that does happen so taxpayers don't get hit with even higher
taxes. I learned a long time ago that you can't raise taxes high

[[Page 5955]]

enough to satisfy the appetite of Congress to spend money.
Stopping the tax increases that people say we are not voting for, we
are only allowing present law, which means the biggest tax increase in
the history of the country will happen without a vote of the people, we
can do something about it. We ought to do something about it. Stopping
these tax increases ought to be a major goal. Maybe taxes should not be
lowered. Nobody is talking about lowering taxes. But we ought to keep
the present level of taxation, because it has been good for the
economy. It has been good for the taxpayers, because we do not see a
revolt going on by taxpayers as we have seen in recent years in the
Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. What business is pending before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is under cloture on the motion to
proceed to H.R. 1195, surface transportation technical corrections.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, under cloture, what it means of course
is we are doing nothing--good speeches on important topics, but we are
not considering legislation. We are not debating a bill. We are killing
time, which turns out to be the major occupation of the Senate for the
last year and a half. Why? Because the minority party, the Republican
Party, has a strategy. It is a strategy of using filibusters to slow
down or stop any bill from passing in the Senate. Today we are seeing
that strategy in the extreme.
The bill pending before the Senate is H.R. 1195. In the annals of
legislative history in the Senate, this will not go down as a great
piece of legislation. This is not a bill that was worked on for years
by Senators and their staffs, conceived with grand ideas to change this
great country. This is a bill which by and large changes punctuation in
the Federal highway bill, a bill we passed several years ago. Then when
we carefully read it afterwards, we said: We got some of this wrong.
This should not have been ``trail.'' It should have read ``road.'' This
section you referred to wasn't exactly accurate. It is another section.
So we created a technical corrections bill, a bill that cleaned up
the Federal highway bill. This technical corrections bill is now being
filibustered by the Republican side of the aisle. They want to stop us
from voting on a technical corrections bill. They want to delay our
consideration of even this housekeeping bill. You ask yourself why.
Frankly, because they don't want us to take up legislation of even
greater importance. This is an important bill. Don't get me wrong. By
cleaning up the old Federal highway bill, we can move forward on
highway projects. We can spend a billion dollars creating good-paying
jobs right here in the United States, 4 to 500 different projects
across our country, 40,000 new jobs. That is good. But these were all
destined to occur. We are just making sure the language is clear enough
to move forward.
We are really not generating a lot of controversy and debate, are we,
about this bill? Two or three little amendments we could take care of
in a matter of an hour, that is about it. But what has happened is that
the Republican minority is trying to stop the majority party--the
Democratic Party--from considering and passing important legislation.
In the history of the U.S. Senate--this grand body, this deliberative
body--in the history of this institution, the record number of
filibusters in any 2-year period of time was 57, until the Republican
minority decided to take on this strategy. So far, last year and the
first few months of this year, there have been 65 Republican
filibusters this Congress, and still counting. They have broken a
record. Who cares? Well, I think a lot of people should care.
We heard the Senator from Vermont a few minutes ago. He talked about
his genuine concern about working people in his State. He talked about
the impact of this economy on average working families. He talked about
the impact of gasoline prices, $3.50 a gallon and higher. He talked
about the impact of food costs going up on families all across America,
the cost of health insurance, the cost of college education, the cost
of daycare for kids. He talked about the fact that the majority of
families have not seen an increase in real income over the last 7 years
of this administration. He feels, as I do, that this Senate should be
dealing with that issue. What is keeping us from doing so? The
filibusters from the Republican side of the aisle: 65 and still
counting, a record number of filibusters.
So Senator McConnell, who is the Republican minority leader in the
Senate, was asked a question at a press conference today. The reporter
said to Senator McConnell about his Republican caucus:

Are you and the caucus prepared now to start slowing down
work on the floor and legislation in response?

He answers:

Well, we are on the highway technical corrections bill. It
is open for amendments. We were discussing various amendments
at our lunch earlier and I assume amendments are going to be
offered and dealt with.

That was his answer, and unfortunately it is wrong. We are not
considering amendments to this bill because we are still under cloture
on the motion to proceed that doesn't expire until 11:30 p.m. tonight.
So if Senator McConnell really wants us to consider amendments to
this bill and get it finished, he needs to walk out on the floor and
agree to a unanimous consent to move to this bill immediately and
consider it. Then his statement to the press this afternoon will be
accurate. But until he does, it is not accurate. We are stuck, stuck on
cloture, stuck, as we have been time and again by this Republican
minority. I, for one, believe they have pushed it to the extreme--a
filibuster on a technical corrections bill.
Can you think of anything else, Madam President, we might be
considering? Well, how about the policy on the war in Iraq, a war that
claimed 2 American lives yesterday, a war that has taken over 4,025 of
our best and bravest, that has injured more than 30,000, that has cost
this country over $700 billion, that continues to cost us $10 billion
to $15 billion a month; a war that claims the lives of our soldiers,
ruins the morale of many troops who refuse to reenlist; a war that has
stretched our military to a breaking point. Is that worth a few minutes
of debate here on the floor of the Senate, the policy of this country
toward the war in Iraq?
How about the war in Afghanistan? A war that was designed to go after
those responsible for 9/11, to capture Osama bin Laden; a war which is
stalled because we have dedicated so many resources to Iraq; a war
which we must win so that al-Qaida and the Taliban do not resume their
control over this poor country; a war which sadly has not resulted in
the capture of Osama bin Laden more than 6 years after the terrible
tragedies of 9/11. Is that worth a few hours on the floor, maybe a
resolution, maybe a discussion about policy? I think it is, but we
can't get to it because Republican filibusters are stopping us.
Maybe we should spend a few moments talking about our dependence on
foreign oil and what we can do to bring down gasoline prices across
America; how we can work on a bipartisan basis to find renewable,
sustainable sources of energy that fuel our economy without killing our
environment. Is that worth a little debate here on the floor of the
Senate? Most Americans think it is an important issue but, sadly, we
are stuck with a Republican filibuster again. Maybe we could spend some
time bringing the bill out of the Committee on the Environment, the cap
and trade bill, a bipartisan bill by Senator Warner, a Republican of
Virginia, Senator Lieberman, an independent Democrat of Connecticut.
Maybe we could bring that to the floor and talk about a way to clean up
this world's environment so our kids have a fighting chance to have a
planet they can live on, so that we can devise with American ingenuity
a system using our free market to make this a cleaner planet. Is that
worth a few hours of debate on the floor?

[[Page 5956]]

Debate on the Children's Health Insurance Program that the President
has vetoed not once but twice, a program to extend health insurance
coverage to some children in America who are not poor enough to qualify
for Medicaid and not lucky enough to have parents with health
insurance, is that worth a few hours of debate on the floor? I think it
is.
Those issues and so many others are the ones the American people
expect us to be talking about right here in Washington. But instead we
have a bill, with grammar and punctuation, trying to clean up a Federal
highway bill of several years ago, that is being filibustered by the
Republican side of the aisle. This is shameful. It is such a waste of
time in this great institution, but it is a specifically designed
strategy by the Republicans to slow down the business of the Senate and
to stop us from considering critically important legislation for
America.
I would say to Senator McConnell, who said that we are on the highway
technical corrections bill and it is open for amendments, it will be
open for amendments when Senator McConnell comes to the floor and gives
us his consent to stop the filibuster and to give us a chance to pass
this bill, as we should have last week, and move on to more important
legislation--legislation the American people ask us to consider. Sixty-
five Republican filibusters this Congress and still counting. The Grand
Old Party, the Republican Party, the GOP now has a new name. It is no
longer the GOP, Grand Old Party. From the Republicans in the Senate, we
have learned that it is the Graveyard of Progress. That is their idea
of their role in the Senate. Any proposal for change, any proposal for
progress, they want to kill. This graveyard is going to speak back to
them in November.
I think the American people have had it with the obstructionism, the
slowdowns, and the obstacles we are seeing here in Washington. The
voters get their chance in November. I hope they will join us. I hope
they will send more Senators to Washington who are prepared to not only
debate but vote for change, Senators who are willing to say: Put an end
to these mind-numbing filibusters and get down to work. Roll up your
sleeves and do something to make life better for working families. Do
something about this energy crisis. Make this planet a safer place for
our kids to live on. Be responsible when it comes to spending, and
start bringing the American soldiers home. That is what we should be
doing. Instead, we are stuck in another Republican filibuster.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today is tax day. People all across
America are heading to the post office to get that all-important
``April 15'' postmark. OK, not everybody waits until the last minute,
but there are enough procrastinators among us that this is sort of a
rite of spring. The first week in Washington brings the cherry
blossoms. The 15th of the month brings long lines near midnight in
front of the main post office just a few blocks from the floor of the
Senate.
For some taxpayers, 2007 was a very good year. Huge fortunes were
made on Wall Street by people who correctly bet against the housing
market, and some of those of the very wealthiest people were given huge
tax breaks that the middle class never saw. But for the people who live
in all of those homes, those homes that Wall Street people were betting
against in some sense, 2007 was a very tough year. The home ownership
rate has actually fallen over the past 6 years, both nationally by a
slight amount and close to 2 percent in the Midwest. What is
extraordinary about this fact is that it came during a period of the
lowest interest rates since the Eisenhower administration. With the
economy expanding, with interest rates at record lows, home ownership
should have expanded. Instead, it shrunk.
The reason is another trend that has received too little notice by
the Nation's newspapers and the Nation's media: economic growth, simply
put, has not benefited most Americans. Instead, income and wealth are
more and more flowing to the most affluent in our country. The middle
class, meanwhile, must work harder and longer to try to maintain its
standard of living. Real wages have been in decline for the past
several years. The only way a lot of families have kept up is, first,
the entry of more women into the workplace--women in greater numbers;
second, workers in this country working longer and longer hours,
overtime if they can get it, two jobs, sometimes even three jobs; and
third, the only way families have kept up is by taking on more and more
debt. The third strategy can be a recipe for disaster; sooner or later,
the bills come due. You can't borrow your way very long to a decent
standard of living.
Economic security begins with economic opportunity. That means good-
paying jobs. It means the kind of training that enables workers to
diversify their skills and take on new challenges. It means high-
quality primary, secondary, and, yes, higher education.
Our Nation is the wealthiest in the world. Overall economic growth
has been strong. Working families should be thriving. By and large,
they are not. Working families are struggling to find and maintain
good-paying jobs to keep their health benefits, to keep their pension
benefits if they have them, and those benefits, those health and
pension benefits, are being scaled back. It costs more and more, as
people painfully know every day, to fill the gas tank. People are
borrowing in record amounts just to cover day-to-day costs. So many
Ohioans from Galion to Gallipolis are struggling.
The Center for American Progress looked at some key statistics over
the past 5 years and found that the average job growth is one-fifth the
rate of previous business cycles. The average job growth is one-fifth--
20 percent--the rate of previous business cycles. Wages have been flat.
Only 28 percent of middle-class families have the financial resources
to sustain themselves through a period of unemployment. The average
family took on debt equal to 126 percent of disposable income just to
manage its day-to-day expenses.
Having witnessed the weakest economic expansion in modern history--in
other words, the growth in our economy, the expansion in our economy
was weaker than the expansion of the economy at any time in recent
history--we now find ourselves in a recession once again. So we didn't
have very strong growth when things were supposedly good--when profits
were up, when there was economic growth--but it wasn't spread around
very well. Now we find ourselves in a recession once again. We have had
three straight months of job losses. Consumer confidence in Lima and in
Zanesville and all over my State is understandably shaken.
Our Nation cannot afford to take these statistics in stride, just
hoping that the precarious financial position of working families is a
temporary phenomenon linked to the ebbs and flows of our economy,
because it is not. Our economy as a whole is losing ground. As our
trade deficit skyrockets, energy and health care costs spiral upward,
good-paying jobs are too often shipped overseas, and our Federal
deficit climbs higher and higher and higher. Yet, when Congress tries
to address any of these problems, we find ourselves faced with
filibusters, one after another after another, as well as veto threats.
When we tried to react to the Housing crisis last fall, Republicans
objected. When we tried to tackle the topic in February, the
Republicans objected and we faced a filibuster. Even today, the
President threatens to veto the bill passed by the Senate. Sixty-five
filibusters, as Senator Durbin and others have said, 65 filibusters--
more filibusters already in the year and 3 months this Senate has been
in session than in any 2-year period in the history of the U.S. Senate.
Sixty-five filibusters. It means we haven't been able to do what we
ought to do in education, on health care, on infrastructure, and, most
importantly, on the war in Iraq.
Today, as an example, we are simply trying to pass a technical
corrections bill to a highway bill. Yet our Republican colleagues are
filibustering and

[[Page 5957]]

slow walking the legislation once again. Sixty-five filibusters.
We spend $3 billion a week in Iraq, with no questions asked.
Halliburton can rob us blind, but we avert our gaze. But to try to
build a road, a bridge, or some other public works in the United
States, and you will meet with filibusters, delays, and obstructionism
by the Republicans. In other words, taxpayers are paying $3 billion and
building hundreds of water systems in Iraq--spending that money with
Halliburton and Bechtel--and the money goes to these contractors
instead of that money coming back to local businesses and building
water and sewer systems in Defiance, Findlay, Bryan, Napoleon, and
Perrysburg, OH--places that are being squeezed and are not able to
afford the reconstruction of the water and sewer systems they need.
We should be doing a lot more construction and a lot less
obstruction. Our roads and bridges, in too many cases, are falling
apart. If my colleagues don't like a project, they can make their case
and offer an amendment instead of the obstructionism, instead of
blocking these issues, instead of their 65 filibusters.
The American people are tired of this kind of delay. Their taxes
should pay for a government that will work on their behalf, rather than
only on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this
country.
We cannot continue down a path that undermines the middle class. We
cannot just hope for real economic recovery. You simply cannot get
there from here.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for that, because this bill before us
is a job producer. There is tremendous support for it. I wanted to make
sure my friend was aware--because I have to ask him a question--of the
support we have. The thing is, when you unleash a billion dollars for
500 projects, which have been tied up for technical reasons, it is
going to create jobs. I ask my friend if he was aware of the broad
support we have. I will read the list of organizations supporting this
technical corrections bill, which will free up some 500 highway
projects: American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials,
which is the departments of transportation for all 50 States; American
Highway Users Alliance; American Public Transit Association, which is
the transit systems; American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, which is more than 5,000 members of the transportation
construction industry; Associated General Contractors, which is more
than 32,000 contractors, service providers, and suppliers; Council of
University Transportation Centers, which is more than 30 university
transportation centers from across the country; National Stone, Sand
and Gravel Association, the companies producing more than 92 percent of
crushed stone and 75 percent of the sand and gravel used in the United
States annually; National Asphalt and Pavement Association, which is
more than 1,100 companies that produce and pave with asphalt.
The point is, when we do this work, in many ways we are creating a
bit of a stimulus. These are the companies and the workers who are
suffering right now because of the economic downturn. Before my friend
leaves, I wanted to thank him and also ask him if he was aware of the
strong support for this bill.
Mr. BROWN. Yes, there is strong support. I appreciate the comments of
the Senator from California. There is strong support for this bill, but
not just in those groups. I had in my office building trades people
from Mansfield, Lima, Cleveland, Dayton, and Columbus. They were
talking about the kinds of jobs--good-paying jobs--in our State on road
crews, such as the operating engineers and laborers and all kinds of
workers that are paid decent wages. It is a stimulus, as the Senator
says. It injects money into our economy immediately. These are ready-
to-go projects. We need to fund them so we can work immediately to
create these jobs, which will spin off and create other jobs.
But it is the same old story. We have had 65 filibusters from
Republicans to stop us from moving forward on everything from health
care, to education, to ending the war in Iraq, to jobs programs such as
this. This is the best kind of jobs and economic development program.
Not only will it create jobs immediately, but it makes it much easier
for economic development and for people to bring new business into
communities because the infrastructure is more modern.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask something else. The Senator is not on the
committee of jurisdiction, but I know he is interested to hear this. We
correct a real problem in this bill. The organization that does the
evaluation of our Nation's bridges, highways, and all of our byways,
has run out of funds. The funds they had have been oversubscribed. What
we do, without adding any new funds, is enable them to get funding and
to continue their work, as we get ready for the next highway bill,
which is coming to us next year.
I wanted to make sure my friend was aware that, as we get ready for
the new highway bill, we need to know the condition of our highways. We
have seen collapsing bridges. That is another reason it is so
important. I am very hopeful that by this evening we are going to see
some relenting. I have been on the floor since Monday morning. I don't
mind that, but it is wasting time, truth be known. We can have a few
amendments and we can wrap this up. My colleagues can go back home and
say we have done something.
I want to specifically know if my colleague was aware of this
particular account that funds the investigation of the state of our
infrastructure--that they have run out of money, and that we fix that
in this bill?
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator for this information and for all she
is doing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Florida is
recognized.

Papal Visit

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from
Colorado is in the chair.
I will begin by simply extending a word of welcome to the Holy
Father, who, a few minutes ago, landed in our country for his historic
visit. I feel tremendously honored that I will have the opportunity to
see his arrival ceremony at the White House tomorrow and, of course,
then to be with him and, I presume, with the President as we celebrate
Mass with him at Nationals Park. It is a momentous and historic
occasion.
I know I speak for many of us as I say the Holy Father is welcome to
the United States. We are delighted he is here. We hope his message of
spiritual renewal, hope, and peace is one that will resonate with the
American people.

Colombian Free Trade Agreement

Mr. President, the Colombian free trade agreement is of great
importance to me personally. It is something that I believe requires
the attention of this Congress, and it is something whose time has come
for us to act and make a determination.
There has been a great deal of attention focused on the future
prospects of this trade agreement with Colombia. The core question is
whether we think people in the United States should be able to
effectively compete in Colombia. What is at stake is whether we want to
create jobs here in the United States, create additional wealth in the
United States, and export more goods and services to Colombia.
The fact is that a free trade agreement with Colombia benefits all of
the stakeholders involved. It is good for the United States, it is good
for Colombia, but it also is good for the Western Hemisphere.
The United States would reap immediate benefits of a free trade
agreement with Colombia in our level of exports--one of the strongest
and more positive areas of our economy today.
I know the Senator from Ohio was just speaking about the economic
hard times in our country. I know and respect him greatly. I am not
sure he agrees this is a good agreement for us to sign. But what better
way is there of

[[Page 5958]]

improving economic circumstances than to export and sell more of our
goods to a country that wants to be our friend and our partner.
By leveling the playing field and eliminating the tariffs on products
we export to Colombia, this agreement would benefit those responsible
for the $8.6 billion in merchandise the United States exported to
Colombia last year.
Currently, more than 9,000 United States companies export products to
Colombia. Of those, 8,000 are small and medium-sized firms. In the
absence of a free trade agreement, these firms must pay up to 35
percent when sending their goods to Colombia. On the other side of the
equation, more than 90 percent of imports from Colombia coming into the
United States arrive here duty free.
This agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80
percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods, and then
reaching up to 100 percent over time.
This is an agreement that will bring more business to American firms,
and it will bring higher demand for products from farmers in Louisiana,
machinery manufacturing workers in Alabama, transportation equipment
providers in Illinois, and electronics makers in California.
My own State of Florida--home to what we think of as the ``gateway to
the Americas'' in Miami--was responsible for $2.1 billion in exports to
Colombia in 2007, the second largest export total in the Nation.
The free trade agreement would benefit the more than 28,500 companies
in my State that provided products in areas such as computers and
electronics, machinery manufacturing, and transportation equipment.
The trade agreement makes sense economically, but also from a
national security standpoint, it strengthens our relationship with a
key Latin American ally and demonstrates our commitment to supporting
nations who choose their leaders through free and fair democratic
elections and who support the rule of law.
In fact, the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees our forces in
Central and South America, sees the Colombian free trade agreement as a
critical component of our Nation's Latin American policy.
A few days ago, I saw Admiral Stavridis, head of the Southern
Command, who was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
I asked Admiral Stavridis whether he felt the Colombian free trade
agreement was an important component of our overall policy for the
region and whether it would add to our ability to increase U.S.
influence and security in the area. He wholeheartedly agreed.
Recently, a group of SouthCom military leaders, including GEN Peter
Pace, expressed their support of the agreement in an open letter to
Congress.
These officials know of the diplomatic opportunities this trade
agreement represents, especially given their unique perspective on the
current climate in Central and South America.
In their letter, they affirm that passing this agreement ``will build
upon [Colombia's] recent advances to enhance the long-term prospects
for peace, stability, and development in Colombia.''
They also argue that it is in our ``national interest to help
Colombia along the road toward democratic consolidation and economic
development.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Open Letter to Congress From Former Commanders of the U.S. Southern
Command Supporting the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

We are writing to urge your support for the U.S.-Colombia
Trade Promotion Agreement. This vital agreement will advance
U.S. interests in Colombia, a strategically located country
that is arguably our closest ally in Latin America. It will
also underscore our deep commitment to stability and growth
in the strategically important Andean region, which depends
on Colombia's continued progress as a resilient and
democratic society.
Colombia's transformation over the past decade is a triumph
of brave and principled Colombians. It is also a remarkable
achievement of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy. Violence has
fallen to its lowest level in a generation, and 45,000
fighters have been demobilized as the country's narco-
guerrilla groups have lost legitimacy. While drug-trafficking
poses a continuing threat, Colombia's leaders have eliminated
two-thirds of its opium production, and more than 500
traffickers have been extradited during the Uribe
administration--by far the most extraditions from any country
to the United States.
Colombia's economic resurgence has been a critical factor
in its recent progress, Robust investment has boosted
economic growth and development. The creation of new jobs has
provided tens of thousands of Colombians with long-term
alternatives to narcotic trafficking or illegal emigration.
The US.-Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement will build upon
these recent advances to enhance the long-term prospects for
peace, stability, and development in Colombia. Providing new
incentives for investment and job creation, this landmark
accord will help ensure that Colombia stays on the path of
economic openness, the rule of law, and transparency.
It is in our national interest to help Colombia progress
along the road toward democratic consolidation and economic
development. This trade agreement will advance U.S. security
and economic interests by forging a deeper partnership.
Finally, approving this agreement will meet our duty to
stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Colombians as they have stood
by the United States as friends and allies. For all of these
reasons, we strongly urge Congress to approve the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
Sincerely,
General James T. Hill,
Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command 2002-
2004.
General Barry McCaffrey,
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 1994-1996.
General Peter Pace,
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 2000-2001.
General Charles E. Wilhelm,
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 1997-2000.
General George Joulwan,
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 1990-1993.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, Colombia remains one of our strongest
allies within the region. It is the strategic center of Latin America,
of all of the Andean countries. Geographically, it is in a precise and
important spot in the region. It is a country of 40 million people. It
is a very significant country.
Fostering this important relationship holds strategic importance to
advancing our security and economic interests in South America and also
with the Colombian Government. Colombia's Congress voted twice in favor
of passing this trade agreement.
It would honor the commitment we made when signing the agreement last
year and would provide greater stability and security to the Colombian
people as their quality of life continues to improve. I know some
critics of the trade agreement point to some of the violence against
labor organizers that has occurred over the years as the reason not to
ratify.
In doing so, I believe they fail to recognize the progress that has
occurred in Colombia in recent years. Colombia has had a violent
history. I can recall in younger days when I used to travel to Colombia
frequently. It was not only a beautiful and wonderful country, but you
were perfectly free to go throughout the country. Over the years, the
violence brought upon the people of Colombia by FARC, or the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, has wreaked havoc on that
country. It was to the point where the violence was incredible.
Six years ago, as President Alvaro Uribe delivered his inaugural
address, mortar shells landed near the Presidential palace in Bogota
and killed 14 people and wounded another 40. That was the level
violence had reached in this country.
These events and crimes against labor organizers were common prior to
when President Uribe came into office in 2002. Since that time,
violence has dramatically decreased in Colombia, and the Colombian
Government's presence is being felt in cities and towns across the
nation.

[[Page 5959]]

Let me point out that one death of an innocent civilian or one death
of a union leader or union organizer is one death too many. Colombia
has seen more than its share of violence.
I point to this chart which I believe is accurate in pointing out the
actual figures when it comes to union leader violence. Notice the high
point in 2001. This is before President Uribe was President. Then he
comes into the Presidency and look at the dramatic drop since his
Presidency down to where it is today. This is not just violence against
union leaders. President Uribe has been effective in pacifying the
country.
The violence against unionists has declined 86 percent during his
time in office from 2002 to 2007. The reason for this decline is
President Uribe's attention and response to concerns over these
attacks. The President established an independent prosecutor unit and
created a special program to protect labor activists. They can actually
seek protection from the Government and be provided with armored
vehicles, with protection for union halls, and personal protection for
them as they go about the country.
There has been significant progress in other areas of Colombia as
well, which is improving the lives of the Colombian people.
It is astonishing to see homicides are down 40 percent, kidnappings
are down 83 percent, and terrorist attacks are down 76 percent. This is
as a result of what, in fact, has been a very successful partnership.
One of those moments of bipartisan agreement that the President and I
so often yearn for in this Congress started under President Clinton
with support from the Republicans, continued under President Bush with
support from Democrats.
We had Plan Colombia. This has been a way of helping the Colombian
Government and the Colombian people to continue to strengthen their
democracy. President Uribe was elected to office with over 60 percent
of the Colombian vote, and he is a democratically elected leader who is
fighting an insurgent group that seeks to destroy his Government and
democracy in Colombia by means of violence.
When we stand with President Uribe, when we stand with the duly
constituted Government elected by the people of Colombia, we are
standing on the side of those who respect democracy, freedom, and human
rights.
When we talk about the kidnappings, these kidnappings have now been
limited to poor peasants, although that has been part of it, but it has
also included Government officials. Miss Betancourt, who has gained
international notoriety because of efforts by the French Government to
free her, was a Presidential candidate in the midst of a Presidential
campaign when she was kidnapped. Also, members of the Congress of
Colombia, businesspeople--they have shown no mercy. Today it is rumored
they maintain about 700 kidnapped victims with them in the jungles of
Colombia. Colombia's Foreign Minister is someone who was a victim of
kidnapping who escaped 5 years ago, maybe more, from the jungles of
Colombia and has regained his freedom.
Public school enrollment in Colombia has increased 92 percent. The
child mortality rate has decreased dramatically as the Government
turned its focus to human rights and also living conditions. The number
of tourists visiting Colombia has doubled in the last 5 years.
Colombia is on the rise. Colombians enjoy a better quality of life
because they have been living in a country that is more peaceful. For
that, I think the Colombian people are very grateful to the United
States. There is no country in the region that is more pro-U.S, that is
more pro-American, and so much wants to interact and work with us.
Enhancing that relationship will continue to bring prosperity at a time
when Colombians continue to face destabilizing forces of terrorism.
There is a second aspect of Plan Colombia. It is not just about
building the Colombian military, as important as that is. There is a
second phase. It is about people, it is about job generation, job
creation. That is why it is important to enter into this free-trade
agreement so that U.S. investment dollars might flow to Colombia and
increase jobs in Colombia as we increase jobs in America as well.
One of the most prominent narcoterrorist organizations operating
within their borders is the FARC. ELN is another one. FARC is an
organization that supports a brand of terrorism much like al-Qaida.
FARC's greatest enemy is stability, the same sort of political and
economic stability provided by trade agreements such as these.
They oppose the democratically elected Government, and they would
love nothing more than to return Colombia to the days of corruption,
chaos, murder, and mayhem. It would be unwise to abandon this vital
alliance in the face of a difficult time for them.
A trade agreement with the United States would deal a blow to those
attempting to hinder Colombia's growth, to those who offer a misguided
vision of the future of the region to those who hear their cry.
The fact is, there is a battle of ideas going on in the hemisphere,
and this battle of ideas is one we cannot shrink from but must engage.
By entering into this agreement, we would join a growing list of
partners in the region that have demonstrated commitment to human
rights, free and fair elections, and strengthening trade relations with
us.
We have a very strong partnership. NAFTA, I must confess I find it a
little difficult to understand how NAFTA, which has created jobs all
over America, could be faulted for jobs going to China. And I cannot
believe, on a serious note, those who seek to be the President of our
country would walk away from that trade agreement. The fact is, this
trade agreement is one that would enhance and advance the interests of
the United States.
I do not believe in a country that would be afraid to compete with
those abroad. I believe in the America that is proud and strong and can
compete with anyone in the world. We cannot just shelter within our
shores. We cannot just retreat to fortress America. Those days are
gone. We created the global trade we live in today and to retreat from
that would be a misguided mistake.
Over the weekend, both the New York Times and the L.A. Times ran
pieces urging Congress to ratify this important and historic trade
agreement. According to the New York Times, ``rejecting or putting on
ice the trade agreement would reduce the United States' credibility and
leverage in Colombia and beyond.''
And the L.A. Times characterized the House's decision to halt the
vote by stating ``it wasn't about the U.S. economy and it wasn't about
Colombia. It was politics.''
I don't want to dwell on that issue because I believe the best way
for this to take place is for us to continue to work together in a
bipartisan fashion to try to bring about an agreement that would be
good for America, good for the region, good for Colombia, good for the
United States, good for our people, good for their people. This is the
kind of trade agreement that is a win-win.
I was talking about NAFTA. We then moved to Central America and the
Dominican Republic, and we have CAFTA. That trade agreement is creating
and generating jobs in that region. We have a free-trade agreement with
Peru and Panama, and if Colombia joins in, that would create a
powerful, mighty trade alliance creating and generating jobs and
exports from the United States to this region.
I was meeting this morning with a gentleman who is hoping to be the
next Ambassador of the United States to Honduras. I asked him how has
CAFTA impacted our relationship with Honduras. He said there has been
several billion dollars a year of trade between us and Honduras, and it
had increased U.S. exports to Honduras by 18 percent. That is good for
America. That is good for American jobs.
So I hope calmer voices will prevail. It would give us a chance to
vote on this important trade agreement. It was signed by Colombia and
the United States well over a year ago. There is

[[Page 5960]]

never a perfect time for these agreements. I believe the votes are
there. I believe it is time to allow the votes to take place instead of
utilizing procedural maneuvers that, at the end of the day, are not
particularly democratic.
Mr. President, I hope we can move forward to consider this agreement,
to study the elements of it, to see the merits of it. It goes beyond
stating the obvious: that this is something that not only would help
economically, but it would also be a tremendous boost to our
relationship in this region of the world that all too often feels
forgotten, that all too often feels our eyes are focused elsewhere in
the world, but are always our closest neighbors, are always our people
who each and every day signify more and more to us.
A great many people of Colombian heritage live in the State of
Florida and in other States of our country. They are great contributors
to the American experiment. I am proud to have them among my
constituents. I know in the southern part of my State, this is a big,
important issue. It is one whose time has come. I hope the Speaker will
reconsider. I hope we will move forward with this important trade
agreement.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of passing the bill
that is on the Senate floor; that is, the SAFETEA-LU technical
corrections bill. When we look at the bill that is of the magnitude of
the SAFETEA-LU bill and its extraordinary importance in our economy,
there are bound to be some drafting errors and issues. I am glad we are
taking the time to correct these errors so we can continue to
strengthen our national infrastructure and our economy.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I applaud
Senator Boxer's leadership in getting this bill to the floor. This bill
is a step in the right direction as this Congress focuses more and more
attention on our national infrastructure.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, as well as future
efforts, to strengthen our national infrastructure.
The Presiding Officer, being a Senator from Colorado, knows and I
know there is a new economy in the future. It is the energy economy.
But if we are going to move forward the next century's economy, we
cannot be stuck in the last century's transportation system.
I believe when you invest in infrastructure, you invest in the
American economy. Rebuilding Main Street means revitalizing Main
Street. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1
billion of Federal highway investment, it creates over 30,000 jobs. So
when we rebuild our roads, we strengthen our economy.
As you know, a bridge collapsed one day in the middle of Minnesota.
It was something no one could ever believe would happen in the middle
of our major Interstate Highway System.
As I said that day, a bridge should not fall down in the middle of
America, especially not an eight-lane interstate highway, especially
not one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our State, and
especially not at rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area,
and especially not in my front yard. As you know, Mr. President, as you
have seen, the area of that bridge was only 8 blocks from my house.
Unfortunately, it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to put the
issue of infrastructure investment squarely on the national agenda, and
it is long overdue.
The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W bridge has raised many
questions about the condition and safety of our roads and bridges. In
fact, we just had a bridge that was similarly designed shut down in St.
Cloud, MN, about an hour and a half away from the bridge that
collapsed. It was designed by the same designer, with the same problem
with the bent gussets. The investigation is still going on into the
exact cause and triggering events that led to the collapse of the I-35W
bridge.
The fact a bridge closed down so near, and the State of Minnesota
decided to replace that bridge rather than repair it, shows this is not
an isolated incident. Critical investment in the maintenance and
construction of our Nation's transportation is imperative.
Strengthening and maintaining our national infrastructure must be a
national priority.
At the moment, our priorities are not in the right place. We spend
$12 billion a month in Iraq, with no end in sight, but our bridges fall
down in the middle of America. We have tax cuts for the top 1 percent,
but it is getting harder and harder for the middle class to get by. We
need to better prioritize our national spending.
Our robust, well-maintained, up-to-date highway system is vital to
the continued expansion of our economy. It is, in fact, an essential
driver of our economic prosperity. As President Kennedy once said:

Building a road or highway isn't pretty. But it's something
that our economy needs to have.

And nowhere is this truer than in rural America.
In Minnesota, the relationship between highways and the economy is
most obvious in our rural areas. Transportation is absolutely essential
to their viability and to their vitality. Rural Minnesota is now in the
midst of an economic revival that promises to grow even stronger. We
are seeing this all over America with the energy revolution, whether it
is wind or solar or geothermal or whether it is ethanol or biodiesel.
As our Nation demands greater energy independence and security, the
rural parts of our country are poised to benefit enormously with the
further development of home-grown energy. I believe we need to be
prepared to maximize the opportunities offered by this renewable energy
revolution. It is only beginning to emerge, but it promises major
economic and technological changes for our country.
Already the development of wind farms and ethanol plants has
rejuvenated many rural areas in our State. We are third in the country
when it comes to wind energy. But at the same time, these wonderful new
energies are placing new demands on our transportation infrastructure.
Here is one example: Demand for ethanol has increased dramatically.
This Congress has pushed it. We are now with corn ethanol, but we know
we will also expand into cellulosic, switchgrass, prairie grass, and
other forms of biomass. For the first 6 months of 2007, ethanol
production in the United States totaled nearly 3 billion gallons--32
percent higher than the same period last year.
Currently, there are 128 ethanol plants nationwide, with total annual
production capacity nearing close to 7 billion gallons. An additional
85 plants are under construction. As we know, this is just the
beginning. We look at places such as Brazil, which are completely
energy independent because of what they have done with sugarcane. We
know corn isn't the only answer. We will expand into other kinds of
ethanol. But we do know this is going to place demands--demands we want
to have--on our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
Total ethanol production in the United States is projected to exceed
13 billion gallons per year by early 2009, if not sooner. What does
that mean in terms of transportation? Well, this means an average
square mile of land in southern Minnesota, which now generates the
equivalent of 80 loaded semitrucks per year, could soon produce double
that--160 loads of grain per year. As more homegrown energy is
produced, rural roads and bridges will have greater demands placed on
them, as will rural rail.
I have had members of my own State of Minnesota--constituents--come
up and show me these old rail ties that are breaking down. I have seen
myself the bridges that are in need of shoulders. I have seen the
highways that are in need of repair. Some of our roads in Minnesota are
in such disrepair they have actually been letting them go to dirt. We
are going the opposite because they do not have the money to repair
them.
The ethanol plant in Benson, MN, now has over 525 fully loaded semis
hauling either corn, ethanol or other forms of biodiesel from their
plant every week. This is a 45-million gallon

[[Page 5961]]

ethanol facility. Their production falls around the middle of
Minnesota's 16 ethanol plants.
SMI Hydraulics is a company in rural southwestern Minnesota that
manufactures the bases for the wind towers you see all across southern
Minnesota. I have visited the company. They basically started in a
barn, and they are building these huge wind towers. The heavy trucks
that bring the steel to the company put an understandable heavy burden
on the roads they travel and are putting their durability to the test.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates truck freight in rural
America is going to double--double--by the year 2020. The continuing
trend toward greater reliance on trucking to support these industries
raises concern about the wear and tear on rural roads and bridges. Many
of these roads and bridges were built before this trend was evident.
Whoever thought they would be carrying this huge wind tunnel? No one
ever thought it would happen, but it does. They were not designed for
this type of traffic.
Much of the rural road network in the United States was constructed
during an era of slower travel and lighter vehicles. Current traffic,
which is heavier and wider, has accelerated the rate of deterioration
and made these types of roads less serviceable. In many important
grain-producing States, such as Minnesota, more than 40 percent of the
major highway system is rated as being in less than fair condition. Our
transportation systems need to support the development of these
industries, so we need to look at the full spectrum of transportation
options.
I truly appreciate Senator Boxer's leadership, looking not just at
truck travel, not just at roads but also at mass transportation and
other ways we can transport our goods to market. With more than half
our State of Minnesota's total population now living in the seven-
county Twin Cities metro area, the need for more transportation options
has become very clear to all of us.
It is not just about the rural areas in our State. Increasing traffic
congestion has become a major threat to Minnesota's quality of life and
our prosperity, costing precious time and money for both commuters and
businesses. There is enormous support in our State for something called
Northstar rail, which would bring people basically from the Twin Cities
to the area of St. Cloud--Big Lake, to be exact. St. Cloud is the area
I explained where the bridge had been closed because of safety
concerns. And if you drive that 94 Interstate right now, I can tell
you, you waste so much time sitting in traffic you practically feel
sick to your stomach if you are there in rush hour.
We need that mass transit, and legislators and people who were
originally completely opposed to this project are now standing up in
front of the line because they know how important it is for their
constituents. This is a case where I have to tell you the constituents
were there before the elected officials and led the way to try to get
this Northstar rail in. And because of the Federal help, it is now
getting built.
The bottom line for any business is you lose money when your people
and your products get stuck in traffic, and you also lose the ability
to attract topnotch, talented workers if they must contend with
aggravating and time-consuming traffic jams. To combat this threat, we
must commit to broadening our transportation options, developing the
right mix of multimodal solutions to serve our emerging needs, while
maintaining our existing systems and highways. This mix, of course,
includes not just rail but rapid bus transit, high-occupancy toll
lanes, and anything we can do to try to move the people to the places
they need to go.
Our Nation has faced this challenge before, a half century ago, and
we succeeded in building a new modern transportation system for a new
modern economy. At the heart of it all was the interstate highway
system. In his 1963 memoir, ``Mandate for Change 1953-1956,'' President
Eisenhower famously said this of transportation:

More than any single action by the government since the end
of the war, this one would change the face of America. Its
impact on the American economy--the jobs it would produce in
manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open
up--was beyond calculation.

He was right. It is our responsibility to restore Eisenhower's vision
of a transportation infrastructure that works for all of America. I can
tell you this firsthand, from my heart, having seen what happens when
you don't invest as you are supposed to; having seen a major bridge
fall down one day in the middle of America; having seen the promise in
the rural parts of our State of the new energy revolution but then
hearing how they can't get their goods to market because they have a
bunch of single-road highways, when they have trucks that are trying to
bring wind towers in, when they are trying to be part of the solution
to this energy crisis.
It is our responsibility to restore that vision that Eisenhower had--
to build this transportation infrastructure in our country. That is why
I am so proud to support Senator Boxer and her work on this bill, and I
hope our colleagues will support this bill and that we get this bill
passed for the good of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am sitting here and listening to Senator
Klobuchar, and I am so proud of her work on the committee that I am
fortunate enough to chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee.
This committee is so interesting because we do everything from global
warming legislation, protecting endangered species, to rebuilding the
infrastructure of our Nation on the public works side.
It is kind of an interesting divide, because when it comes to
rebuilding the infrastructure, we have more bipartisan support right
now than for protecting the environment; where Senator Warner, on
global warming, has frankly been our hero on the other side of the
aisle, joining with us. But on the infrastructure, Senator Inhofe and I
have worked very closely together, and with the help of members of the
committee, such as Senator Klobuchar, we are making progress.
Before the good Senator leaves the floor, I wanted to make sure she
was aware of something in this bill that is so crucial and is very much
apropos to her reminding us about the bridge collapse in Minnesota. We
fix an oversight in SAFETEA-LU that resulted in a particular account
being oversubscribed. That account was the surface transportation
research development and deployment account.
Now, what does that do? It is a very fancy name. Basically, that
particular account funds research into the status of our
infrastructure. It takes a look at our infrastructure, and it tells us
what we need to do to keep up. Do we need to reinforce our bridges, for
example. That is one of the aspects they look at. The appraisal of our
highways. How do we fund transit? What is the physical condition of our
roads? How do they operate? What is their performance level? It is so
crucial that we have the information.
My colleague from Minnesota wrote the carbon registry bill that is
part of our global warming bill because she knows that before you can
solve global warming, you need to know how much carbon and other
greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. We can't write a new bill in
2009 unless we know the status of our roads, our freeways, our bridges,
and our highways. So that is why this bill is so important.
We have been here for 2 full days now. I have been ready, willing,
and able to take any and all amendments. We have said the bill is
closed. We are not adding anything new because we want to keep this
bill the exact same cost as the SAFETEA-LU bill. We are not adding
anything. We are, in essence, making technical corrections to make sure
we don't stymie a billion dollars' worth of projects, which is going to
create tens of thousands of new jobs, and we are going to free up the
frozen level of this research because they can't research anymore. They
can't do any more research on the state of our infrastructure. We want
to unfreeze that.

[[Page 5962]]

So here we are for 2 days, standing on our feet begging our
Republican friends not to filibuster this bill. What is the point?
Everybody wants this bill, except maybe one Senator who doesn't like
one provision in it. We had the vote to proceed. I think it was 93 to
1. So everyone wants this bill. This bill doesn't add any new spending,
it unleashes a billion dollars of important projects. That is why we
have extraordinary support--and I don't have the chart here--from all
our construction trades people, the management side, the labor union
side, the worker side. We have it all. We have the heads of all the
transit agencies across the country. They all want this bill. It is
very impressive.
Oh, good, we have it back. I will show it one more time, because when
you hear who is backing us--and they are not backing us quietly, they
are on the phones, they are calling Members and saying: Let this bill
go.
When my kids were young, they would call something a no-brainer. That
is what this bill is, a no-brainer. This bill makes eminent sense.
Here is the list: The American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials--from all 50 States--support us; the American
Highway Users Alliance--millions of highway users; the American Public
Transit Association--transit systems from across the country; American
Road and Transportation Builders--that is more than 5,000 members of
the transportation construction industry; Associated General
Contractors--that is 32,000 contractors; Council of University
Transportation Centers--more than 30 university transportation centers
from across the country; The National Stone, Sand and Gravel
Association--these are the companies that produce more than 92 percent
of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel used in the United
States annually; and the National Asphalt and Pavement Association--
more than 1,100 companies.
These are the folks who are suffering right now. These are the folks
who have gotten caught in this recession we are in. These are the folks
who are calling Senators and saying: Please, let this bill go.
Senator Boxer supports it, Senator Inhofe supports it, Senator
Klobuchar supports it, Senator Baucus supports it, Senator Isakson
supports it. I could list members from our committee--almost all. As I
said, we had a vote of 93 to 1 to proceed to this bill.
Calling all Republican friends: Please, please, please, relent.
Please, let's get going. People are counting on you. They need the
work. They need the jobs. Our country needs the infrastructure built.
This doesn't cost a penny more. These are funds that are sitting in the
trust fund.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be glad to yield to my colleague.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask the Senator, how long has she been trying to get
this bill through? I know she has been waiting. I know it has been
months.
Mrs. BOXER. The House passed it 1 year ago, and we passed it in the
committee in June 2007. This is not something that--this has been
around. We have been asking Senator Reid. He wanted to bring it up, but
it is getting caught up in other matters. It has been a long time.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It seems to me, when there is so much bipartisan
support, the other side of the aisle would try to advance this bill. I
know in our State we have had this tragedy. They see this not only as
you talk about it--as a way to figure out, do an analysis of what we
really need to meet our transportation needs but they also need it as
investment. As you know, we were unable, on the stimulus package, to
get some of the things we wanted on the Democratic side, so we did get
the check in the mail to people. But long after those rebate checks are
cashed, we need a long-term investment strategy in this country that
invests in jobs.
I thank Senator Boxer for bringing up that piece of the bill. I was
very focused on the nuts and bolts on the roads, the wear and tear on
the roads that we all think about when driving on the highway, but we
also have to think about this as an investment strategy. I thank her
for bringing out that important point.
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do it, I say to my friend, and I am glad
she asked me when we passed this bill out of committee--June 2007. June
2008 is fast upon us. The House also passed it a year ago.
This is a long time in coming. You are so right, we all talk about
the need to make sure there are good jobs for people. This is a
ministimulus package right here. There are 500 important projects that
will move forward. This means real jobs, real jobs in the U.S. of A.
When you are building a road here, you are building a road here. This
is important.
It is unusual to see all of these folks team up together. We had a
press conference this morning, management and labor together saying:
Please, here is an opportunity.
There is nothing negative to say about this bill, as far as I am
concerned. You may have one or two projects you wouldn't vote for, but
the fact is they have come from the Members of Congress who know their
districts and know their States.
I was very glad Senator DeMint called and said he was pleased with
the way we did our disclosure under the new ethics rule, that our
committee had set the standard. I was very happy to hear from him about
that. He said we did it right, we made it public. Everybody signed on
to whatever project they requested--very open, very transparent, very
necessary. This is a very necessary bill.
I guess I am talking to colleagues who may be in their offices and I
am saying, especially to my Republican friends, come join us. Let's do
something good for the people. This is very important for your States.
You have the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials--that's the department of transportation for all 50 States--
calling on us to act. There is no reason to hold this up. We are
wasting precious minutes. We are wasting precious hours. We are wasting
precious days. We have a lot of other work to get done.
My goodness, I don't understand filibustering this bill which, again,
is within the budget. It doesn't add a penny more than we were supposed
to spend. I am a little perplexed as to why we are sitting here at 10
to 6 at night and we can't get anybody to come here to offer an
amendment. But I am ever hopeful, because it is my nature, that people
will realize, as they go back to their offices and see their phone
messages from all these people, that this is real. This is real. We
need to get it done.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I will be back as
soon as I have some news to share with colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the matter before the Senate now that
is currently being blocked by the minority is a bill that would permit
work to proceed on hundreds of highway and transportation
infrastructure projects, creating tens of thousands of construction
jobs, and pouring $1 billion into our economy. This is timely
legislation to repair our roads and bridges now, while our economy
needs the work. Yet this bill is stalled in this body because
Republicans in the Senate will not allow it to move forward.
Unfortunately, we have seen this movie too many times. The minority
has engaged in no less than 65 filibusters in this Congress--an
astounding number that lays bare the minority's lack of interest in
solving the real problems America faces. What a record--65 filibusters,
the most ever. That is what the minority has to contribute to the
problems America is facing.
A number of our Republican colleagues have come to the floor of the
Senate to speak today, but we have

[[Page 5963]]

heard very little in the way of substantive or reasonable objections
to the highway bill. Instead, what we have heard is a lot of talk about
taxes. Of course taxes are on the minds of many Americans today. It is,
after all, April 15, filing day, the deadline for Federal and State tax
returns to be filed. Today, we should remember that the work of
Government does not just cost money, it costs our money. For that
reason, we should ask how this Government is spending our hard-earned
money and whether the priorities reflected in the Federal Government's
spending are truly the right priorities for our people and for our
time.
These are difficult days. Today, families throughout my State of
Rhode Island and all across this country are reading their bank
statements, opening their bills, reading their local newspapers, and
finding that the looming downturn in the economy leaves them struggling
to make ends meet. Everywhere we look, prices are rising, from the
groceries that feed our families to the gasoline that fuels our cars.
Every day, more Americans face the disaster of foreclosure. Every day,
more Americans face the nightmare of catastrophic health care bills.
In these days of insecurity, the people of this country are looking
for answers, for solutions, for a new direction. Democrats in the
Senate are working overtime to provide that new direction. We passed an
economic stimulus package, legislation to address the housing crisis,
and a budget plan to put our Government back on the path to surplus and
cut taxes for middle-class families. We know we need a change of course
and, most particularly, a change of leadership in the White House to
get our country back on track.
But Senate Republicans today are making it clear that they do not
agree. Instead of putting working families first, instead of getting
our infrastructure repaired, they want to protect the massive Bush tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans, a fiscally irresponsible policy that
has left our country trillions of dollars in debt. Instead of a budget
that focuses Federal Government spending on our children and our
veterans, Republicans want to stick us with the status quo, pouring
hundreds of billions of dollars into an endless war in Iraq without
spending a dime here at home to fix the problems that face American
families.
Senate Democrats support tax cuts for middle-class families,
including targeted help for families with children or seeking to adopt
a child. Indeed, the budget resolution this year would provide those
tax cuts in a fiscally responsible way, without digging our country
deeper into debt. But President Bush and his Republican allies in the
Senate want to extend the extravagant portions of the 2001 to 2003 Bush
tax breaks that are weighted heavily toward the wealthiest Americans.
Mr. President, 71 percent of the value of the tax cuts in 2009 will
go to the wealthiest fifth of Americans, and 28 percent of the value of
the tax cuts goes to the top 1 percent, a group whose incomes average
around $1.5 million a year--clearly people who are hurting and need a
lot of help from our Government right now. Almost nothing at all goes
to the lowest earning fifth, families who earn $15,000 a year or less.
This is the George Bush idea of fair tax policy.
The President's insistence on forcing through these cuts without
making up for the lost revenue, to defer that pain to later
generations--to our children, to our grandchildren--was not only
cowardly leadership, it left our budget in precarious straits. The Bush
tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 cost a staggering $1.9 trillion, and they
account for 25 percent of the $7.7 trillion Bush Debt. The $7.7
trillion Bush Debt is the difference between the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office projections as President Clinton left
office compared to the budgetary nightmare George Bush created--$7.7
trillion.
I am from Rhode Island. One trillion dollars is an unthinkable amount
of money in a small State such as Rhode Island. I do not know what $7.7
trillion is. So I have tried to scale it for myself. I have here in my
hand a simple penny. A simple penny. If this simple penny were $1
billion--now, even in Rhode Island $1 billion is big money--if this
simple penny were $1 billion, $7.7 trillion is a stack of these simple
billion-dollar pennies that is 39 feet high, takes us right to the top
of this room with a simple penny being a full billion dollars.
It is an astonishing burden for this country to have to bear. It is
the responsibility of George Bush and the Republicans, and we have to
get serious about it. But are the Senate Republicans willing to get
serious about it? No. If they have their way, the wealthiest Americans
will continue to profit to the tune of trillions of borrowed dollars
while those most in need receive virtually nothing. According to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the poorest Americans--the
lowest 20 percent of income earners would receive less than 0.5 percent
of the value of extending Bush tax cuts between 2009 and 2018. The top
20 percent, on the other hand, would receive a staggering 74 percent of
the value, a total of nearly $4 trillion over that 10-year period.
And, of course, this is Bush tax policy, so the higher the income,
the greater the benefit. Close to $1.2 trillion in Bush tax cuts would
accrue to the top 1 percent of American households. Households with
annual incomes of more than $1 million a year, those alone receive $834
billion, $834 billion in extended Bush tax cuts.
The reckless fixation on tax cuts for our wealthiest folks that the
Bush administration has pursued is driving us to a bad place, to a
divided America with two economies, a gilded economy for the wealthy,
and a worried struggle for everyone else. That is not good for America.
In fact, that is not America. But this does not seem to bother our
Republican friends. They have hitched their wagons to the big winners
in the gilded economy: the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies,
the billionaires. The two economies, well, that is fine with them so
long as their friends are winning. But that is not good for America.
In fact, that is not America, not the one we know. The tool they have
used over and over and over is the filibuster. With a $7.7 trillion
Bush Debt foundering us, with families across the country in their home
States, everyone struggling, you would think they would want their role
to be more productive than being the biggest filibusters in American
history. You would think they would want a more productive record and
legacy than that. But, no, they want to dig a $7.7 trillion hole and
then filibuster the folks who are trying to get America out of it. It
is so clear that Senate Republicans would prefer to engage in
overheated and overhyped tax rhetoric than they would roll up their
sleeves, sit down, and get to work on legislation solving the real
problems working Americans are facing across our country each day.
I will tell you, it is clear and it is disappointing.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the record has been made clear today. We
wish we had been doing some legislating. We have not been. I have had a
number of conversations with my distinguished counterpart, Senator
McConnell.
Senator McConnell, following the caucus he had with his Senators, as
I have with mine every Tuesday, my understanding is a concern was
raised in the caucus about the number of judges who have been or not
been approved by the Senate in these last few months.
As you know, one day last week we approved five judges, one circuit
court judge and four district court judges. We thought that was a step
in the right direction. What are we going to do the rest of this year?
You know, there is a Thurmond doctrine that says: After June, we will
have to take a real close look at judges in a Presidential election
year.
June is fast approaching. I believe that is the time set forth in the
Thurmond doctrine. So today Senator

[[Page 5964]]

McConnell and I in our conversations talked about all of the various
judges who could be brought up, should be brought up, may be brought
up, and we went over the different circuits and talked in some detail.
Following my first conversation with Senator McConnell, I called the
Judiciary Chairman, Senator Leahy. He and I have a wonderful
relationship. He defends me on the floor, I defend him on the floor.
Our wives are friends. He is a good person. I think the world of him.
So I called him so there would be no misunderstanding. He came over to
my office following the telephone conversation. And after the telephone
conversation I called Senator McConnell. Senator Leahy came to my
office and we visited again about the judges. We believe we need to
make more progress on judges.
As we have said before, we do not want the minority to be treated the
way we were treated during the Clinton years. We have done a pretty
good job. At this time we have probably approved 90 percent of
President Bush's judges, lots and lots of judges, well over 100 judges
we have approved.
The Republican leader asked me: What can you do before our Memorial
Day recess? What I have told him is we are going to do our utmost, we
are not going to talk about district court judges, we are going to
approve district court judges, the exact number of which I do not know,
and Senator Leahy and I are going to do everything we can to approve
three circuit court judges by Memorial Day.
I would like to be able to guarantee that. I cannot guarantee it. A
lot of things happen in the Senate. But I am going to do my very best.
I want to live up to what I am saying here on the floor right now.
Senator Leahy knows I am here speaking before the American people today
and to Senator McConnell. So we are going to do our very best to
approve three circuit court judges by Memorial Day. That is about the
best I can do. Which ones, I have told Senator McConnell. There are a
number of alternatives we can have. He knows some by name, I know them
by name. I do not want and I do not choose to go over them name by name
at this time. But we have a number to choose from to get to those
three. I will do the best I can, working with Senator Leahy and the
Judiciary Committee. And when I say ``bring to the floor,'' that means
confirm the judges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my good friend, the majority leader,
and I, I think at the beginning of this conference--and I believe this
is a correct characterization of where we were; I am sure he can
disabuse me of the notion if it is not a direct characterization of
where we were--we felt at the very least, President Bush, with regard
to circuit court nominees, should be treated as well as President
Reagan, President Bush 41, and President Clinton were treated in the
last 2 years of their Presidencies.
Each of those Presidents found themselves with the following dilemma:
The Senate was in the control of the opposing party, so there was a
certain symmetry to this President. George W. Bush ends up the last 2
years of his Presidency similarly situated to President Reagan,
President Bush 41, and President Clinton. The average number of circuit
court judges approved for all of those Presidents was 17. President
Clinton was on the low end of that at 15.
As of today, April 15, we have approved in this Congress seven
circuit judges. Except for last week, there had not been one since last
September. I am sure the majority leader would agree with me that we
are running dramatically behind. We know there is an election coming up
in the fall.
The majority leader mentioned the so-called Thurmond rule which at
some point here will probably be implemented, indicating there will not
be any circuit judges approved.
We currently have before the committee two judges, one from North
Carolina and one from South Carolina. The one from North Carolina has a
unanimously well qualified from the American Bar Association and has
previously been confirmed to his current position as a district court
judge by the Senate. The blue slips are back on both of these judges.
We anticipate there will be a nominee from Virginia who will have blue
slips returned and, in the near future, two nominees from the State of
Michigan whose blue slips will be returned. As we all know, in Michigan
there are two Democratic Senators and in Virginia there is one
Democratic Senator and one Republican. In South Carolina and North
Carolina, there are two Republican Senators. The chairman of the
Judiciary Committee has made it clear he is not likely, almost
certainly not likely, to move a nominee from a State for which there
are no blue slips. So we have blue slips in on North and South
Carolina, and both nominees have been waiting for quite some time. So
there are nominations ready to go.
What I have said is there is a great interest on my side in seeing
three circuit court nominees confirmed by the Senate before the
Memorial Day recess. The majority leader has indicated he is
comfortable with that. We have not picked the candidates, but let me
suggest it would be unfair to discriminate against a State which has
two Republican Senators with blue slips in and has had nominees pending
for quite some time in favor of nominees only recently with blue slips
in or only recently nominated. The principle should be the same
regardless of whether a State is represented by two Republicans, two
Democrats or one Republican and one Democrat. If the blue slips are in,
the blue slips are in. If the nominee is otherwise qualified and
noncontroversial, I would hope, I say to my good friend, the majority
leader, he would share my view that we should not discriminate against
a nominee from a State with two Republican Senators, the nominees
having been pending for quite some time, in favor of recent nominees
who happen to be from States with two Democratic Senators or one
Democratic and one Republican Senator. I wonder if my friend, the
majority leader, has any observation about that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of places from which the
Judiciary Committee can move matters to the floor. We have North
Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Maryland. We have Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania situation, we have a Democrat and a Republican there.
As I recall the judge's name, the nominee there is a man by the name of
Pratter. We have someone from Virginia. We have, as of today, two from
Maryland. We have a wide range to choose from. I say to my friend from
Kentucky, no, it should not be because you have two from the same party
from one State and they are not our party, that should not cause them
not to have their nominee approved. As I indicated last week when we
got into a discussion about this, we should measure the quality of the
nominees, not the quantity. We are today talking about the quantity of
nominees. But we also have to be concerned about the quality of these
nominees. We should confirm capable, mainstream nominees who are the
product of bipartisan cooperation. With this committee, to get
something out of the committee, it has to be bipartisan. I guess it
doesn't have to be, but that is the way we would like it.
So we have done a pretty good job. Last year, we had a very
controversial judge. One of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee
decided she would vote with the minority. As a result of that, a
controversial judge was reported to the floor and ultimately approved.
So we are working very hard to arrive at three judges by the time of
our break, which is 5 weeks from now, I believe. I said when I got this
job, that if the nominations of judges are important to my friend, the
Republican leader, they are important to me. I have some knowledge of
difficulties with judges on the floor, having survived, as the
Democratic leader, the so-called nuclear option. So I understand how
people feel strongly about judges. Democrats feel strongly about them.
Republicans feel strongly about them. When Senator Lott was majority
leader, he said words to the effect: Why

[[Page 5965]]

should we worry about them in the Senate? People don't care about
judges. This is something that is just within the Senate.
I, personally, don't feel that way. I feel these men and women who
have lifetime appointments are extremely important and that we should--
even though Senator Lott might be right, maybe people outside
Washington don't care about judges, I care about judges. The Republican
leader cares about judges. I will try my best to get three judges
approved by the Senate before the Memorial Day recess.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the only thing I would add with regard
to my earlier comments, just picking, for example, the North Carolina
judge, the Fourth Circuit is a judicial emergency. The chairman of the
Judiciary Committee has set forward some standards. His first standard:
If a vacancy is deemed to be a judicial emergency, it should be
addressed quickly. That is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In
the case of the Fourth Circuit, it has been declared a judicial
emergency. It is one-third vacant. The nominee from North Carolina, to
pick an example, is not controversial, has a unanimously well qualified
from the ABA. The blue slips are back from both North Carolina
Senators. My only point to my good friend, the majority leader, was it
would seem not to be fair, when you have a nominee pending for a long
time who is not controversial, upon which the blue slips have been
returned, where there are two Republican Senators, for that nominee to
be in effect moved to the back of the bus while you handle nominees
nominated more recently from a State with two Democratic Senators or a
State with one Democrat and one Republican Senator.
What I am pleading for is a sense of fairness. I believe in the case
of both North Carolina and South Carolina, with the judicial emergency
existing on the Fourth Circuit, you could make a strong case that they
should be dealt with first under the standards of the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. But in particular I cite the nominee from North
Carolina because he has been declared noncontroversial, had the
unanimous ABA approval rating, and has been pending for hundreds of
days. I don't know why we couldn't meet the goal the majority leader
has set out of doing three circuit court nominees before Memorial Day.
There is no reason not to. There are enough ready to be dealt with who
don't require additional paperwork.
So I guess my question of the majority leader is, What is his view as
to the likelihood that we would get three circuit judges confirmed
before the Memorial Day recess?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, Chairman Leahy understands. If
there is an emergency in a circuit, he understands the importance of
doing something about that. He has expressed that publicly and
privately. Also, in this overall process, let's make sure we
understand, there are vacancies out there in the circuit courts that we
have no nominees for. We are waiting for them. I say to my friend, as I
have said before, I am going to do everything to work with the
Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy said he would do that too. I think
we can say we would work very hard to make sure there are no holdovers.
That is, if somebody is reported out, we will do our very best to make
sure they don't waste that week on that. I am going to do what I can to
fulfill what I have said. I will do everything within my power to get
three judges approved to our circuits before the Memorial Day recess.
Who knows, we may even get lucky and get more than that. We have a
number of people from whom to choose. Maybe the President can send us
down a few more names on some of those vacancies that are there now. I
don't know what more I can say than to say what I have said. I have to
work with the committee, within the rules they have, and do the best I
can.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I guess the only thing I would add,
would the majority leader agree with me on the following principle:
That a circuit judge from a State with two Republican Senators, who is
completely qualified and upon which two blue slips have already been
returned and have been pending for a long time, does the majority
leader share my view that those type nominees from States with two
Republican Senators should not be discriminated against in trying to
meet our responsibility? We have only confirmed seven circuit judges
throughout this Congress. We are a long way from coming anywhere close
to what President Clinton got at 15.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope the record will reflect the smile on
my face because the fact is, we had, for years, two Democratic Senators
from a State and those nominees of President Clinton weren't even given
a hearing. More than 60 weren't even given a hearing. They were pocket
vetoed, for lack of a better description. So, yes, I think if you have
two Senators from the same party, they should not be discriminated
against. I mentioned their names. Their names are Matthews and Conrad.
I have spoken to Senator Leahy. The first time I talked to him was
today. Of course, we will take a look at those.
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, I certainly understand what the intention of the
majority leader is. We will need to discuss this further, I guess
privately. I certainly understand his intention. I know he is a person
who operates in good faith. I trust him. We have had a good
relationship over the last period during which we have been in our
respective positions. I guess the calculation I have to make, at some
point, is what is the likelihood of this occurring, because there is a
deep-seated unrest on our side related to this low number of circuit
court judges. I think that is understandable. It is a paltry number in
comparison to how President Reagan, President Bush, and President
Clinton were handled in a similar situation. But I understand the
representations my good friend, the majority leader, has made as far as
he is prepared to go today. We will continue to discuss the matter.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only thing I would say, my good friend
asked the odds. I am from Las Vegas. I don't bet. I hope they are good
odds. I am going to do everything I can to live up to what I have said
this last 5 or 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield, my leader yield to me for a
question?
Mr. REID. Surely.
Mrs. BOXER. I was pleased to see this dialog back and forth. Because,
frankly, I have been wondering, as chairman of the Environment
Committee, what was going on. We have a very straightforward bill on
the floor. I didn't understand. We have a few amendments. We are very
happy to deal with them. We have every group in the country, every
construction group, management, labor, everyone, we have every State
asking us to do this bill. I didn't understand, frankly, why we were
waiting around. I wonder, I ask my leader--and I would be delighted to
hear from the Republican leader as well, given this colloquy you had
back and forth--and I know the Senator from Nevada as well as anyone
here. When he gives his word like this and says: I am going to do
everything I can, listen, I think that is as good as it gets around
here. I am hopeful, and I would ask my leader to tell me and the
Republican leader as well, Senator Inhofe is here, I am here, we are
very anxious to move our bill forward, 500 transportation projects, not
one penny of added spending; it will unleash a billion dollars' worth
of jobs, I am wondering whether you could let us know tonight what are
the chances that we are going to be able to move forward.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I wish we had moved to this bill
Thursday night, legislated yesterday and today. We haven't done that.

____________________

HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that all
postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to,
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the
Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1195.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 5966]]

Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1195) to amend the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users, to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported
from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, with an amendment
to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Technical
Corrections Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Correction of Internal References in Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises.--Paragraphs (3)(A) and (5) of section
1101(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat.
1156) are amended by striking ``paragraph (1)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``paragraph (2)''.
(b) Correction of Distribution of Obligation Authority.--
Section 1102(c)(5) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119
Stat. 1158) is amended by striking ``among the States''.
(c) Correction of Federal Lands Highways.--Section 1119 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1190) is amended by
striking subsection (m) and inserting the following:
``(m) Forest Highways.--Of the amounts made available for
public lands highways under section 1101--
``(1) not more than $20,000,000 for each fiscal year may be
used for the maintenance of forest highways;
``(2) not more than $1,000,000 for each fiscal year may be
used for signage identifying public hunting and fishing
access; and
``(3) not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year shall
be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to pay the costs of
facilitating the passage of aquatic species beneath forest
roads (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23, United
States Code), including the costs of constructing,
maintaining, replacing, and removing culverts and bridges, as
appropriate.''.
(d) Correction of Description of National Corridor
Infrastructure Improvement Project.--Item number 1 of the
table contained in section 1302(e) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (119 Stat. 1205) is amended in the State column by
inserting ``LA,'' after ``TX,''.
(e) Correction of Infrastructure Finance Section.--Section
1602(d)(1) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat.
1247) is amended by striking ``through 189 as sections 601
through 609, respectively'' and inserting ``through 190 as
sections 601 through 610, respectively''.
(f) Correction of Project Federal Share.--Section 1964(a)
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1519) is amended--
(1) by striking ``only for the States of Alaska, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Dakota,''; and
(2) by striking ``section 120(b)'' and inserting ``section
120''.
(g) Transportation Systems Management and Operations
Defined.--Section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(39) Transportation systems management and operations.--
``(A) In general.--The term `transportation systems
management and operations' means an integrated program to
optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through
the implementation of multimodal and intermodal, cross-
jurisdictional systems, services, and projects designed to
preserve capacity and improve security, safety, and
reliability of the transportation system.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `transportation systems
management and operations' includes--
``(i) regional operations collaboration and coordination
activities between transportation and public safety agencies;
and
``(ii) improvements to the transportation system, such as
traffic detection and surveillance, arterial management,
freeway management, demand management, work zone management,
emergency management, electronic toll collection, automated
enforcement, traffic incident management, roadway weather
management, traveler information services, commercial vehicle
operations, traffic control, freight management, and
coordination of highway, rail, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian operations.''.
(h) Correction of Reference in Apportionment of Highway
Safety Improvement Program Funds.--Effective October 1, 2006,
section 104(b)(5)(A)(iii) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``the Federal-aid system'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Federal-aid highways''.
(i) Correction of Amendment To Advance Construction.--
Section 115 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(j) Correction of High Priority Projects.--Section 117 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as
subsections (e) through (i), respectively;
(2) by redesignating the second subsection (c) (relating to
Federal share) as subsection (d);
(3) in subsection (a)(2)(A) by inserting ``(112 Stat.
257)'' after ``21st Century''; and
(4) in subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting
``subsection (c)''; and
(B) by striking ``SAFETEA-LU'' and inserting ``Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1256)''.
(k) Correction of Transfer of Unused Protective-Device
Funds to Other Highway Safety Improvement Program Projects.--
Section 130(e)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``purposes under this subsection'' and inserting
``highway safety improvement program purposes''.
(l) Metropolitan Transportation Planning.--Section 134 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (f)(3)(C)(ii) by striking subclause (II)
and inserting the following:

``(II) Funding.--In addition to funds made available to the
metropolitan planning organization for the Lake Tahoe region
under other provisions of this title and chapter 53 of title
49, prior to an allocation under section 202 of this title,
the Secretary shall set aside \1/2\ of 1 percent of funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out that section,
which shall be provided to the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning
Organization to carry out the transportation planning
process, including the environmental review of transportation
projects to complete environmental documentation for the Lake
Tahoe region under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact as
consented to in Public Law 96-551 (94 Stat. 3233) and this
subparagraph.'';

(2) in subsection (j)(3)(D) by inserting ``or the
identified phase'' after ``the project'' each place it
appears; and
(3) in subsection (k)(2) by striking ``a metropolitan
planning area serving''.
(m) Correction of Highway Bridge Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 144 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the section heading by striking ``replacement and
rehabilitation'';
(B) in subsections (b), (c)(1), and (e) by striking
``Federal-aid system'' each place it appears and inserting
``Federal-aid highway'';
(C) in subsections (c)(2) and (o) by striking ``the
Federal-aid system'' each place it appears and inserting
``Federal-aid highways'';
(D) in the heading to paragraph (4) of subsection (d) by
inserting ``systematic'' before ``preventive'';
(E) in subsection (e) by striking ``off-system bridges''
each place it appears and inserting ``bridges not on Federal-
aid highways'';
(F) by striking subsection (f);
(G) by redesignating subsections (g) through (s) as
subsections (f) through (r), respectively;
(H) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(G))--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A)--

(I) in clause (vi), by inserting ``, except that any
unobligated or unexpended funds remaining upon completion of
the project under this clause shall be transferred to and
used to carry out the project described in clause (vii)''
after ``Vermont''; and
(II) in clause (viii), by inserting ``and corridor'' after
``bridge''; and

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the paragraph heading
and inserting ``Bridges not on federal-aid highways'';
(I) in subsection (m) (as redesignated by subparagraph (G))
by striking the subsection heading and inserting ``Program
for Bridges Not on Federal-Aid Highways''; and
(J) in subsection (n)(4)(B) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (G)) by striking ``State highway agency'' and
inserting ``State transportation department''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Metropolitan planning.--Section 104(f)(1) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``replacement and
rehabilitation''.
(B) Equity bonus program.--Subsections (a)(2)(C) and
(b)(2)(C) of section 105 of title 23, United States Code, are
amended by striking ``replacement and rehabilitation'' each
place it appears.
(C) Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended in the item relating to
section 144 by striking ``replacement and rehabilitation''.
(n) Correction of National Scenic Byways Program
Coverage.--Section 162 of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(B) by striking ``a National Scenic
Byway under subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``a National
Scenic Byway, an All-American Road, or one of America's
Byways under paragraph (1)''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(3) by striking ``or All-American
Road'' each place it appears and inserting ``All-American
Road, or one of America's Byways''.
(o) Correction of Reference in Toll Provision.--Section
166(b)(5)(C) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)''.
(p) Correction of Recreational Trails Program Apportionment
Exceptions.--Section 206(d)(3)(A) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``(B), (C), and (D)'' and
inserting ``(B) and (C)''.
(q) Correction of Infrastructure Finance.--Section
601(a)(3) of title 23, United

[[Page 5967]]

States Code, is amended by inserting ``bbb minus, BBB
(low),'' after ``Baa3,''.
(r) Correction of Miscellaneous Typographical Errors.--
(1) Section 1401 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119
Stat. 1226) is amended by redesignating subsections (d) and
(e) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.
(2) Section 1404(e) of such Act (119 Stat. 1229) is amended
by inserting ``tribal,'' after ``local,''.
(3) Section 10211(b)(2) of such Act (119 Stat. 1937) is
amended by striking ``plan administer'' and inserting ``plan
and administer''.
(4) Section 10212(a) of such Act (119 Stat. 1937) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``equity bonus,'' after ``minimum
guarantee,'';
(B) by striking ``freight intermodal connectors'' and
inserting ``railway-highway crossings'';
(C) by striking ``high risk rural road,''; and
(D) by inserting after ``highway safety improvement
programs'' the following: ``(and separately the set aside for
the high risk rural road program)''.

SEC. 3. MAGLEV.

(a) Funding.--Section 1101(a)(18) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (119 Stat. 1155) is amended by striking subparagraphs
(A) and (B) and inserting the following:
``(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(B) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and
2009.''.
(b) Contract Authority.--Section 1307 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1217) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(e) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized under section
1101(a)(18) shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code; except that the funds shall not
be transferable and shall remain available until expended,
and the Federal share of the cost of a project to be carried
out with such funds shall be 80 percent.''.

SEC. 4. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

The table contained in section 1301(m) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1203) is amended--
(1) in item number 19 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Regional rail expansion and transportation
infrastructure in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, New Mexico'';
and
(2) in item number 22 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Redesign and reconstruction of interchanges
298 and 299 of I-80 and accompanying improvements to any
other public roads in the vicinity, Monroe County''.

SEC. 5. IDLING REDUCTION FACILITIES.

Section 111 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (d).

SEC. 6. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--The table contained in section 1702 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1256) is amended--
(1) in item number 3688 by striking ``road'' and inserting
``trail'';
(2) in item number 3691 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Hoonah roads'';
(3) in item number 3695 by striking ``in Soldotna'' and
inserting ``in the Kenai River corridor'';
(4) in item number 3699 by striking ``to improve fish
habitat'';
(5) in item number 3700 by inserting ``and ferry
facilities'' after ``a ferry'';
(6) in item number 3703 by inserting ``or other roads''
after ``Cape Blossom Road'';
(7) in item number 3704 by striking ``Fairbanks'' and
inserting ``Alaska Highway'';
(8) in item number 3705 by striking ``in Cook Inlet for the
Westside development/Williamsport-Pile Bay Road'' and
inserting ``for development of the Williamsport-Pile Bay Road
corridor'';
(9) in item number 3828 by striking ``$2,000,000'' and
inserting ``$11,000,000'';
(10) by striking item number 3829;
(11) by striking item number 3832;
(12) in item number 3861 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Creation of a greenway path along
the Naugatuck River in Waterbury'';
(13) in item number 3883 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Wilmington Riverfront Access and
Street Grid Redesign'';
(14) in item number 3892 by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$8,800,000'';
(15) in item number 3894 by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,200,000'';
(16) in item number 3909 by striking the project
description and inserting ``S.R. 281, the Avalon Boulevard
Expansion Project from Interstate 10 to U.S. Highway 91'';
(17) in item number 3911 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construct a new bridge at Indian
Street, Martin County'';
(18) in item number 3916 by striking the project
description and inserting ``City of Hollywood for U.S. 1/
Federal Highway, north of Young Circle'';
(19) in item number 3937 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Kingsland bypass from CR 61 to I-
95, Camden County'';
(20) in item number 3945 by striking ``CR 293 to CS 5231''
and inserting ``SR 371 to SR 400'';
(21) in item number 3965 by striking ``transportation
projects'' and inserting ``and air quality projects'';
(22) in item number 3986 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Extension of Sugarloaf Parkway,
Gwinnett County'';
(23) in item number 3999 by striking ``Bridges'' and
inserting ``Bridge and Corridor'';
(24) in item number 4003 by striking the project
description and inserting ``City of Council Bluffs and
Pottawattamie County East Beltway Roadway and Connectors
Project'';
(25) in item number 4043 by striking ``MP 9.3, Segment I,
II, and III'' and inserting ``Milepost 24.3'';
(26) in item number 4050 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Preconstruction and construction
activities of U.S. 51 between the Assumption Bypass and
Vandalia'';
(27) in item number 4058 by striking the project
description and inserting ``For improvements to the road
between Brighton and Bunker Hill in Macoupin County'';
(28) in item numbers 4062 and 4084 by striking the project
descriptions and inserting ``Preconstruction, construction,
and related research and studies of I-290 Cap the Ike project
in the village of Oak Park'';
(29) in item number 4089 by inserting ``and parking
facility/entrance improvements serving the Museum of Science
and Industry'' after ``Lakeshore Drive'';
(30) in item number 4103 by inserting ``and adjacent to
the'' before ``Shawnee'';
(31) in item number 4110 by striking the project
description and inserting ``For improvements to the road
between Brighton and Bunker Hill in Macoupin County'';
(32) in item number 4120 by striking the project
description and amount and inserting ``Upgrade 146th Street
to Improve I-69 Access'' and ``$800,000'', respectively;
(33) in item number 4125 by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$1,650,000'';
(34) by striking item number 4170;
(35) by striking item number 4179;
(36) in item number 4185 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Replace the Clinton Street Bridge
spanning St. Mary's River in downtown Fort Wayne'';
(37) in item number 4299 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Improve U.S. 40, MD 715
interchange and other roadways in the vicinity of Aberdeen
Proving Ground to support BRAC-related growth'';
(38) in item number 4313 by striking ``Maryland Avenue''
and all that follows through ``Rd. corridor'' and inserting
``intermodal access and pedestrian safety improvements'';
(39) in item number 4315 by striking ``stormwater
mitigation project'' and inserting ``environmental
preservation project'';
(40) in item number 4318 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Planning, design, and
construction of improvements to the highway systems
connecting to Lewiston and Auburn downtowns'';
(41) in item number 4323 by striking the project
description and inserting ``MaineDOT Acadia intermodal
passenger and maintenance facility'';
(42) in item number 4338 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construct 1 or more grade-
separated crossings of I-75, and make associated improvements
to improve local and regional east-west mobility between
Mileposts 279 and 282'';
(43) in item number 4355 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Design, engineering, ROW
acquisition, construction, and construction engineering for
the reconstruction of TH 95, from 12th Avenue to CSAH 13,
including bridge and approaches, ramps, intersecting
roadways, signals, turn lanes, and multiuse trail, North
Branch'';
(44) in item number 4357 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Design, construct, ROW, and
expand TH 241 and CSAH 35 and associated streets in the City
of St. Michael'';
(45) in item number 4360 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Planning, design, and
construction for Twin Cities Bioscience Corridor in St.
Paul'';
(46) in item number 4362 by striking the project
description and inserting ``I-494/U.S. 169 interchange
reconstruction including U.S. 169/Valley View Road
interchange, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area'';
(47) in item number 4365 by striking the project
description and inserting ``34th Street realignment and 34th
Street and I-94 interchange, including retention and
reconstruction of the SE Main Avenue/CSAH 52 interchange
ramps at I-94, and other transportation improvements for the
city of Moorhead, including the SE Main Avenue GSI and
Moorhead Comprehensive Rail Safety Program'';
(48) in item number 4369 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construction of 8th Street North,
Stearns C.R. 120 to TH 15 in St. Cloud'';
(49) in item number 4371 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construction and ROW of TH 241,
CSAH 35 and associated streets in the City of St. Michael'';
(50) in item number 4411 by striking ``Southaven'' and
inserting ``DeSoto County'';
(51) in item number 4424 by striking the project
description and inserting ``U.S. 93 Evaro to Polson
transportation improvement projects'';
(52) in item number 4428 by striking the project
description and inserting ``U.S. 76 improvements'';
(53) in item number 4457 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construct an interchange at an
existing grade separation at SR 1602 (Old Stantonsburg Rd.)
and U.S. 264 Bypass in Wilson County'';
(54) in item number 4461 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Transportation and related
improvements at Queens University of Charlotte, including the
Queens

[[Page 5968]]

Science Center and the Marion Diehl Center, Charlotte'';
(55) in item number 4507 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Design, right-of-way and
construction of Highway 35 between Norfolk and South Sioux
City, including an interchange at milepost 1 on U.S. I-129'';
(56) in item number 4555 by inserting ``Canal Street and''
after ``Reconstruction of'';
(57) in item number 4565 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Railroad Construction and
Acquisition, Ely and White Pine County'';
(58) in item number 4588 by inserting ``Private Parking
and'' before ``Transportation'';
(59) in item number 4596 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Transportation center, Corning'';
(60) in item number 4610, by striking the project
description and inserting ``Demolition, site restoration, and
hazardous material abatement of Alert Facility at Plattsburgh
International Airport'';
(61) in item number 4649 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Fairfield County, OH U.S. 33 and
old U.S. 33 safety improvements and related construction,
city of Lancaster and surrounding areas'';
(62) in item number 4651 by striking ``for the transfer of
rail to truck for the intermodal'' and inserting ``, and
construction of an intermodal freight'';
(63) in item number 4691 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Transportation improvements to
Idabel Industrial Park Rail Spur, Idabel'';
(64) in item number 4722 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Highway, traffic, pedestrian, and
riverfront improvements, Pittsburgh'';
(65) in item number 4749 by striking ``study'' and
inserting ``improvements'';
(66) in item number 4821 by striking ``highway grade
crossing project, Clearfield and Clinton Counties'' and
inserting ``Project for highway grade crossings and other
purposes relating to the Project in Cambria, Centre,
Clearfield, Clinton, Indiana, and Jefferson Counties'';
(67) in item number 4838 by striking ``study'' and
inserting ``improvements'';
(68) in item number 4839 by striking ``fuel-celled'' and
inserting ``fueled'';
(69) in item number 4866 by striking ``$11,000,000'' and
inserting ``$9,400,000'';
(70) by inserting after item number 4866 the following:

``4866A RI Repair and restore $1,600,000'';
railroad bridge in
Westerly

(71) in item number 4892 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construct a 4-lane highway
between maverick Junction and the Nebraska border'';
(72) in item number 4915 by striking the project
description and inserting ``For projects of highest priority,
as determined by the South Dakota DOT'';
(73) in item number 4916 by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$328,000'';
(74) in item number 4924 by striking ``$3,450,000'' and
inserting ``$4,122,000'';
(75) in item number 4927 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Construction and Improvements to
the College Street Corridor, Great Smoky Mountain Heritage
Highway Cultural and Visitors Center in Maryville'';
(76) in item number 4960 by inserting ``of which $50,000
shall be used for a street paving project, Calhoun'' after
``County'';
(77) in item number 4974 by striking ``, Sevier County'';
(78) in item number 5008 by inserting ``/Kane Creek
Boulevard'' after ``500 West'';
(79) in item numbers 5011 and 5033 by striking ``200 South
Interchange'' each place it appears and inserting ``400 South
Interchange'';
(80) in item number 5021, by striking ``Pine View Dam,'';
(81) in item number 5026 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Roadway improvements on
Washington Fields Road/300 East, Washington'';
(82) in item number 5027 by inserting ``and roadway
improvements'' after ``safety project'';
(83) in item number 5028 by inserting ``and roadway
improvements'' after ``lighting'';
(84) in item number 5029 by inserting ``and roadway
improvements'' after ``lights'';
(85) in number 5032 by striking the project description and
inserting ``Expand Redhills Parkway, St. George'';
(86) in item number 5132 by striking the project
description and inserting ``St. Croix River crossing project,
Wisconsin State Highway 64, St. Croix County, Wisconsin, to
Minnesota State Highway 36, Washington County''; and
(87) in item number 5161 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Raleigh Street Extension Project
in Martinsburg''.
(b) Transfer of Project Funds.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall transfer to the Commandant of the Coast
Guard amounts made available to carry out the project
described in item number 4985 of the table contained in
section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat.
1447) to carry out that project, in accordance with the Act
of June 21, 1940 (commonly known as the ``Truman-Hobbs Act'')
(33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.).
(c) Unused Obligation Authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, unused obligation authority made available
for an item in section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (119 Stat. 1256) that is repealed, or authorized
funding for such an item that is reduced, by this section
shall be made available--
(1) for an item in section 1702 of that Act that is added
or increased by this section and that is in the same State as
the item for which obligation authority or funding is
repealed or reduced;
(2) in an amount proportional to the amount of obligation
authority or funding that is so repealed or reduced; and
(3) individually for projects numbered 1 through 3676
pursuant to section 1102(c)(4)(A) of that Act (119 Stat.
1158).
(d) Additional Discretionary Use of Surface Transportation
Program Funds.--Of the funds apportioned to each State under
section 104(b)(3) of title 23, United States Code, a State
may expend for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009 not
more than $1,000,000 for the following activities:
(1) Participation in the Joint Operation Center for Fuel
Compliance established under section 143(b)(4)(H) of title
23, United States Code, within the Department of the
Treasury, including the funding of additional positions for
motor fuel tax enforcement officers and other staff dedicated
on a full-time basis to participation in the activities of
the Center.
(2) Development, operation, and maintenance of electronic
filing systems to coordinate data exchange with the Internal
Revenue Service by States that impose a tax on the removal of
taxable fuel from any refinery and on the removal of taxable
fuel from any terminal.
(3) Development, operation, and maintenance of electronic
single point of filing in conjunction with the Internal
Revenue Service by States that impose a tax on the removal of
taxable fuel from any refinery and on the removal of taxable
fuel from any terminal.
(4) Development, operation, and maintenance of a
certification system by a State of any fuel sold to a State
or local government (as defined in section 4221(d)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for the exclusive use of the
State or local government or sold to a qualified volunteer
fire department (as defined in section 150(e)(2) of such
Code) for its exclusive use.
(5) Development, operation, and maintenance of a
certification system by a State of any fuel sold to a
nonprofit educational organization (as defined in section
4221(d)(5) of such Code) that includes verification of the
good standing of the organization in the State in which the
organization is providing educational services.

SEC. 7. CORRECTION OF INTERSTATE DESIGNATION.

(a) Treatment.--Section 1908(a) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (119 Stat. 1469) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(b) National Highway System.--Section 1908(b) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1470) is amended by striking
``from the Arkansas State line'' and inserting ``from
Interstate Route 540''.

SEC. 8. FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

Section 1909(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119
Stat. 1471) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(9) by striking ``July 1, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31,
2007'';
(2) in paragraph (11)(C) by striking ``the Administrator of
the Federal Highway Administration'' and inserting ``the
Secretary'';
(3) in paragraph (11)(D)(i) by striking ``, on a
reimbursable basis,'';
(4) in paragraph (15) by striking ``$1,400,000 for each of
fiscal years 2006 and 2007'' and inserting ``$1,400,000 for
fiscal year 2006 and $3,400,000 for fiscal year 2007'';
(5) by redesignating paragraphs (14), (15), (16), and (17)
as paragraphs (15), (16), (17), and (18), respectively; and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following:
``(14) Limitations.--
``(A) Funds.--Funds made available to carry out this
section may be expended only to support the activities of the
Commission.
``(B) Data, analyses, and reports.--No data, analysis,
report, or other document prepared for the Commission to
fulfill the duties of the Commission may be provided to, or
shared with, any other commission or task force until the
data, analysis, report, or document has been made available
to the public.''.

SEC. 9. BUDGET JUSTIFICATION.

Section 1926 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (49 U.S.C. 301
note; 119 Stat. 1483) is amended by striking ``The
Department'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Department''.

SEC. 10. BUY AMERICA.

Section 1928 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat.
1484) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as
paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) the current application by the Federal Highway
Administration of the Buy America test as applied only to
components or parts of a bridge project and not the entire
bridge project is inconsistent with this sense of
Congress;''.

SEC. 11. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

The table contained in section 1934(c) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1486) is amended--

[[Page 5969]]

(1) in item number 12 by striking ``Yukon River'' and
inserting ``Kuskokwim River'';
(2) in item number 18 by striking ``Engineering and
Construction in Merced County'' and inserting ``and safety
improvements/realignment of SR 165 project study report and
environmental studies in Merced and Stanislaus Counties'';
(3) in item number 38 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Relocation of the Newark Train Station'';
(4) in item number 57 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Kingsland bypass from CR 61 to I-95, Camden
County'';
(5) in item number 114--
(A) by striking ``IA-32''; and
(B) by inserting ``SW'' after ``Construct'';
(6) in item number 122 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Design, right-of-way, and construction of the
SW Arterial and connections to U.S. 20, Dubuque County'';
(7) in item number 130 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Improvements and rehabilitation to rail and
bridges on the Appanoose County Community Railroad'';
(8) in item number 133 by striking ``IA-32'';
(9) in item number 138 by striking the project description
and inserting ``West Spencer Beltway Project'';
(10) in item number 142 by striking ``MP 9.3, Segment I,
II, and III'' and inserting ``Milepost 24.3'';
(11) in item number 161 by striking ``Bridge replacement on
Johnson Drive and Nall Ave.'' and inserting ``Construction
improvements'';
(12) in item number 182 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Improve U.S. 40, M.D. 715 interchange, and
other roadways in the vicinity of Aberdeen Proving Ground to
support BRAC-related growth'';
(13) in item number 198 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Construct 1 or more grade separated crossings
of I-75 and make associated improvements to improve local and
regional east-west mobility between Mileposts 279 and 282'';
(14) in item number 201 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Alger County, paving a portion of H-58 from
Buck Hill to a point located 4,000 feet east of the Hurricane
River'';
(15) in item number 238 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Develop and construct the St. Mary water
project road and bridge infrastructure, including a new
bridge and approaches across St. Mary River, stabilization
and improvements to United States Route 89, and road/canal
from Siphon Bridge to Spider Lake, on the condition that
$2,500,000 of the amount made available to carry out this
item may be made available to the Bureau of Reclamation for
use for the Swift Current Creek and Boulder Creek bank and
bed stabilization project in the Lower St. Mary Lake
drainage'';
(16) in item number 329 by inserting ``, Tulsa'' after
``technology'';
(17) in item number 358 by striking ``fuel-celled'' and
inserting ``fueled'';
(18) in item number 374 by striking the project description
and inserting ``Construct a 4-lane highway between Maverick
Junction and the Nebraska border''; and
(19) in item number 402 by striking ``from 2 to 5 lanes and
improve alignment within rights-of-way in St. George'' and
inserting ``, St. George''.

SEC. 12. HIGHWAY RESEARCH FUNDING.

(a) F-SHRP Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009, at any time
at which an apportionment is made of the sums authorized to
be appropriated for the surface transportation program, the
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program,
the National Highway System, the Interstate maintenance
program, the bridge program, or the highway safety
improvement program, the Secretary of Transportation shall--
(1) deduct from each apportionment an amount not to exceed
0.205 percent of the apportionment; and
(2) transfer or otherwise make that amount available to
carry out section 510 of title 23, United States Code.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Funding.--Section 5101 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (119 Stat. 1779) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``509, and 510'' and
inserting ``and 509'';
(B) in subsection (a)(4) by striking ``$69,700,000'' and
all that follows through ``2009'' and inserting ``$40,400,000
for fiscal year 2005, $69,700,000 for fiscal year 2006,
$76,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, and
$78,900,000 for fiscal year 2009''; and
(C) in subsection (b) by inserting ``or, in the case of
funds appropriated by subsection (a) to carry out section
5201, 5202, or 5203, 80 percent'' after ``50 percent''.
(2) Future strategic highway research program.--Section
5210 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119 Stat.
1804) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (c); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(c) Contract Authority.--Funds made available under this
section shall be available for obligation in the same manner
as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code, except that the Federal share shall be
determined under section 510(f) of that title.
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitation.--Funds made
available under this section shall be subject to any
limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs under section 1102 the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 119 Stat. 1157)
or any other Act.
(e) Equity Bonus Formula.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in allocating funds for the equity bonus
program under section 105 of title 23, United States Code,
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009, the Secretary of
Transportation shall make the required calculations under
that section as if this section had not been enacted.
(f) Funding for Research Activities.--Of the amount made
available by section 5101(a)(1) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (119 Stat. 1779)--
(1) at least $1,000,000 shall be made available for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to carry out section 502(h) of
title 23, United States Code; and
(2) at least $4,900,000 shall be made available for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to carry out section 502(i) of
that title.
(g) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Surface transportation research.--Section 502 of title
23, United States Code, is amended by striking the first
subsection (h), relating to infrastructure investment needs
reports beginning with the report for January 31, 1999.
(2) Advanced travel forecasting procedures program.--
Section 5512(a)(2) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (119
Stat. 1829) is amended by striking ``Program appreciation.--
'' and inserting ``Program application.--''.
(3) University transportation research.--Section 5506 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (i)--
(i) by striking ``In order to'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In order to''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Special rule.--Nothing in paragraph (1) requires a
nonprofit institution of higher learning designated as a Tier
II university transportation center to maintain total
expenditures as described in paragraph (1) in excess of the
amount of the grant awarded to the institution.''; and
(B) in subsection (k)(3) by striking ``The Secretary'' and
all that follows through ``to carry out this section'' and
inserting ``For each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009, the
Secretary shall expend not more than 1.5 percent of amounts
made available to carry out this section''.

SEC. 13. RESCISSION.

Section 10212 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (as amended by
section 1302 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-280)) (119 Stat. 1937; 120 Stat. 780) is amended by
striking ``$8,593,000,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$8,710,000,000''.

SEC. 14. TEA-21 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 1108(f)(1) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 133 note; 112
Stat. 141) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2009''.
(b) Beartooth Highway, Wyoming and Montana.--Item number
1646 of the table contained in section 1602 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
317) is amended in the project description by striking ``and
construction'' and inserting ``reconstruction, maintenance
(including routine and preventive maintenance), snow removal,
and pavement preservation''.

SEC. 15. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR AND INNOVATIVE PROJECT
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) High Priority Corridors.--Section 1105(c) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105
Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1212) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (63) by striking ``and United States
Routes 1, 3, 9, 17, and 46,'' and inserting ``United States
Routes 1, 9, and 46, and State Routes 3 and 17,''; and
(2) in paragraph (64)--
(A) by striking ``United States Route 42'' and inserting
``State Route 42''; and
(B) by striking ``Interstate Route 676'' and inserting
``Interstate Routes 76 and 676''.
(b) Innovative Projects.--The table contained in section
1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2048(b)) is amended in item number 89,
in the matter under the column with the heading ``Innovative
projects'', by inserting ``and contiguous counties'' after
``Michigan''.

SEC. 16. DEFINITION OF REPEAT INTOXICATED DRIVER LAW.

Section 164(a)(5) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting
the following:
``(A) receive--
``(i) a driver's license suspension for not less than 1
year; or
``(ii) a combination of suspension of all driving
privileges for the first 45 days of the suspension period
followed by a reinstatement of limited driving privileges for
the purpose of getting to and from work, school, or an
alcohol treatment program if an ignition interlock device is
installed on each of the motor vehicles owned or operated, or
both, by the individual;
``(B) be subject to the impoundment or immobilization of,
or the installation of an ignition interlock system on, each
motor vehicle owned or operated (or both) by the
individual;''.

SEC. 17. RESEARCH TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Section 5506(e)(5)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``$2,225,000''and inserting
``$2,250,000''.

[[Page 5970]]

SEC. 18. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act
(including subsection (b)), this Act and the amendments made
by this Act take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Exception.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this Act (other
than the amendments made by sections 4, 6, and 11) to the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144)
shall--
(A) take effect as of the date of enactment of that Act;
and
(B) be treated as being included in that Act as of that
date.
(2) Effect of amendments.--Each provision of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144)
(including the amendments made by that Act) (as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act) that is
amended by this Act (other than sections 4, 6, and 11) shall
be treated as not being enacted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are on this bill.
Senator Inhofe and I haven't wasted the time. We have been talking with
our colleagues. I think for the interest of all Members, at this point
we don't expect any votes tonight, but we certainly do hope in every
way possible that we will start disposing of the amendments in the
morning. We will be here about 10:30. We urge our colleagues to come
down and offer their amendments. We will debate them, we will have our
votes on them, and we will get something done for the American people.
I yield the floor at this time.
I see my ranking member and I am delighted he is here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
This is something we have spent a long time on. I think it is very
important for all of us on both sides of the aisle to understand that
what we are considering here is not the transportation reauthorization
bill of 2005. That was done. That is history. That is behind us. A
technical corrections bill is common with every bill, every major piece
of legislation that comes along. Sometimes in the case--I will go ahead
and say in my case of Oklahoma, we had a major project that was about a
$200,000 project in Durant, OK in which, according to our
transportation commissioner and the Transportation Department of
Oklahoma, that same amount of money could be better spent doing the
same project but at another location. Well, that takes a technical
change. There is no difference.
I say to all of my good friends, there is no one who is more
conservative than I am by all ratings in my last 22 years in both the
House and the Senate. There are no new projects. There is no new
spending. The amount of money that was authorized is the same amount of
money that is authorized at the present time in the technical
corrections bill. So it is not somehow getting some kind of an earmark
or something else in it.
I have often said that of all of the systems we use in Washington to
accomplish things, probably the transportation system is the best. I
don't know of anyone who complains about paying into the highway trust
fund when they get gasoline. They want to be sure it is going to go to
building highways, repairing bridges. But what we do in the State of
Oklahoma is we have eight transportation districts, eight
transportation commissioners, all geographically located. They make
recommendations. What I do with a transportation bill is I leave it up
to them to make the determination as to where that goes. The States are
making those decisions. The highway trust fund--there are some States
where the money doesn't go straight into transportation. They have been
robbing balances of the highway trust fund for as long as I know. We
have corrected that problem in the State of Oklahoma. Instead of having
it go to other causes, it goes to correcting the crisis we are in right
now.
I wish to say that for those of us who are conservatives, this is
something that works well. If there is any function of government that
needs to be addressed and has to be addressed at the Federal level, it
is our roads and highways. We have States such as Montana, big States
that have very few people. You still have to get across them. You have
the congested eastern States that have the opposite situation. That is
why way back in the Eisenhower administration they decided to go in
together and create this system we still have today. It is one that has
worked fairly well. I don't want people out there to think this is
something that has a bunch of projects and a bunch of earmarks in it.
It doesn't. This is something we spent 2 or 3 years intensively working
on prior to its passage in 2005. Now we want to make these corrections
to make sure the rest of the projects get done.
Here is the dilemma we have right now. We have a lot of projects--not
nearly enough but a lot of projects--that we authorized in 2005. If we
don't have technical corrections, we are up against the wall now where
we can't get anything more done, and we have given our word to people
all throughout the country that we are going to improve bridges, we are
going to try to save lives, and it has virtually stopped because we
have certain corrections that need to be made.
What we dealt with on that very large, what was it, $286 billion over
the period of 2005 through 2009, which is a lot of money, that doesn't
do anything more--it doesn't even maintain what we already have. We
don't even have a lot of new stuff in there. There is not a person in
America who doesn't know we have a crisis. Some of these Members of
this committee or this body, if you don't think it is a crisis, call
your wife at home, or your husband, and they will tell you it is a
crisis. It is worse every year. It is not something that we can make a
decision today and all come to our good senses and get it done and it
will be done tomorrow. It is a long lead time. It is a complicated
process. But it is one of the things that has worked well.
I know there are a lot of people who want to satisfy some
constituency that says you are spending too much money. You tell that
constituency to go out and drive in the traffic for a while and see
what kind of serious problems we have.
I have often said--and I have followed this myself--we all in this
body have different priorities. That is what makes it a representative
body. I have often said we need to, No. 1, take care of our Nation's
security, have a military that can defend our country; No. 2, take care
of the infrastructure we have and move forward with that; and No. 3,
which is kind of a pet thing with me, and I think everyone who has
previously been a mayor of a major city--unfunded mandates is another
area that I feel this governing body should be paying attention to. But
we have a bill. We have a bill that is working now. We are improving
highways. We are adding lanes. But we have come to a stop. I think
anyone who tries to keep this from becoming a reality doesn't want to
address a serious problem we are faced with.
No one else is going to do it for us. The States can't do it. It has
to be done by the Federal Government. We passed a bill. We are going to
be coming up against another bill next year when this runs out in 2009.
We are going to be reauthorizing for the next 5 years or 7 years or
maybe even longer. But this has to be done and we need to get it done
now.
We do have several amendments. I understand the concern of the
Senator from South Carolina who has made his statements, and he has
done so very eloquently. Frankly, I agree with almost everything he
says. The only thing I disagree with is that this bill isn't creating
new projects, isn't spending new money. We need, in his State as well
as my State and in all 50 States, to get on with this. I hope people
realize these are not new projects; it is not an increase in spending.
It doesn't spend at all; it is an authorization bill.
Another amendment that is going to be pending is that of my good
friend Senator Bond from Missouri. He has a special concern, and I
encourage him to come down to the floor to bring it up, debate it, and
let's vote on it and get that done. Then my junior Senator has

[[Page 5971]]

a concern over something that is a process that happened--it didn't
even happen here, but it happened in the other body. Now, I agree with
him, it is something that was egregious and needs to be investigated. I
think it should be. I think there are a lot of different ways of doing
it. I want to join hands with him and get this done.
So we, to my knowledge, only have those three things that are out
there that are holding this up. I would invite those three authors to
come down. I think while we are not going to be having votes tonight,
we can start debating these tonight, and tomorrow morning we could
actually vote on some of these. But I agree with the chairman of the
committee, Senator Boxer, and the majority and the minority leaders in
this body that we need to get it done. We are not going to get it done
until we get the amendments down here, debate them, and decide what is
the will of this body. That is what we are supposed to be doing for a
living around here. That is what happens.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

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

____________________

COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier this month, President Bush sent up
another trade agreement to the House of Representatives. This agreement
is a bilateral trade agreement with Colombia. He calls it a ``free
trade agreement,'' a term we use around here--I am not sure why, except
that it sounds good, because these trade agreements generally are--I
don't have it in front of me, but it was too thick to bind in its
original printing. It is about seven or eight hundred pages.
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement--which the Presiding
Officer opposed 15 years ago, as I did--was even longer than that. The
way they sell these agreements is they say we are eliminating the
tariffs on the trade relationship between--in this case it is Colombia,
and Colombia still has tariffs on American goods. We have eliminated
tariffs on Colombian goods. If we were to pass a real free trade
agreement, it would be three, four, five, six pages long and eliminate
the tariff schedule, making a real free trade agreement.
These are not free trade agreements the President sends us, nor are
they free trade agreements that Presidents in the past sent. They are
hundreds and hundreds of pages of protectionism, pages outlining
protections for the drug companies, protections for the energy
companies, for financial services companies, banks and others, and
protections for the pharmaceutical industry. That is what these
supposed free trade agreements are.
It is interesting that those of us who oppose these ``free trade
agreements'' because they don't protect our communities, frankly, are
called ``protectionists.'' If we are going to write these agreements
and build in protections for the drug companies, the oil industry, and
the other energy companies, the financial services companies, the
banks, and the insurance companies, we also should build in protections
for our workers in New Jersey and in Ohio, protections for our
communities in Lima, and Mansfield, and Tiffin, OH, protections for
food safety, and build in protections for consumer product safety.
But that is not what they do. What is most curious about these
agreements that the President has sent up--in this case the most recent
is Colombia--it reminds me of the old Einstein saying that the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over
again and expecting a different outcome.
We have seen, in almost 15-plus years in the House of
Representatives, and now in the Senate--and it is roughly the same
period of the Presiding Officer--we have seen our trade deficit go from
$38 billion in 1992, to in excess of $800 billion last year. It is hard
to know exactly what that means. A $38 billion deficit--that means we
buy $38 billion more in this country than we sell to other countries.
It is $800 billion more that we buy in this country than we sell to
other countries. That is a huge amount of dollars, obviously.
That $800 billion--it was boiled down by the first President Bush,
who said that a billion dollar trade surplus, or deficit, translated
into 13,000 jobs. So if you have a trade surplus--in other words, if
you are selling more than you are buying as a nation, a billion
dollars, according to President Bush the first, would add up to about
13,000 new jobs--net gain of jobs in your country. But if you have $1
billion deficit, it means it is a 13,000 net job loss in your country.
We have not a billion dollar trade deficit but an $800 billion one. Do
the math. What does that mean in lost jobs? It means an awful lot of
lost manufacturing jobs in my State, from Cleveland, to Dayton, to
Lima, to Canton, to Kent, to Ravenna, to all over our State. It means a
lot of other lost jobs, not just manufacturing jobs. When American
Standard shuts down in Tiffin, and when a company shuts down in
Bucyrus, or in Ashland, it means fewer firefighters, fewer
schoolteachers, fewer restaurant workers, fewer realtors, and fewer
people who serve those jobs--those people who had the manufacturing
jobs.
So it is pretty clear that the trade agreements, in addition to other
damage they have done, clearly--when you have a trade deficit that goes
from $38 billion to $800 billion in a decade and a half, they have done
significant damage to our country and, most importantly, to our
communities and our families.
I will close on something specifically unique to the Colombia trade
agreement. We know that in Colombia they have had a significant number
of murders committed against union activists. I heard a Member of the
House say today there were more union activists--organizing union
leaders--murdered in Colombia than anywhere in the rest of the world
combined.
Although President Uribe of Colombia says union violence has come
down and his spokespeople in this body say the same, the fact is that
union murders, deaths of union activists in the first 3 months of 2008
are almost twice what they were in 2007. Adding insult to injury, we
have seen fewer and fewer convictions. Only about 3 percent of these
murders have resulted in convictions of the people who have been guilty
of the murders. To add even further insult to this whole issue, the
American Government, the State Department has said the paramilitary
vigilantes who are allied often with the Uribe Government who have
killed the union activists are classified by our State Department as
terrorists. We, in essence, are supporting the Uribe Government that is
allied with paramilitary vigilantes who are called terrorists by our
own Government.
I don't quite see why we would want to reward that Government. I want
President Uribe to succeed. I think he has done decent works. But I
don't think we should reward him with a trade agreement and lose the
leverage we have to try to get the activist murder rate down and also
so that the people have the opportunity to join unions in Colombia.
Fewer than 5 percent of the Colombian workforce is unionized. That is
the lowest or second lowest in the Western Hemisphere.
They are not doing what they need to do to bring working families
into the middle class, as we have seen in our country. The reason we
have a prosperous Zanesville and a prosperous Springfield, OH, in part
is because of people's ability to join a union and bargain collectively
for better wages, health care, and pensions.

[[Page 5972]]

In the country of Colombia, they do not have those opportunities. For
us to put the imprimatur of the U.S. on a free-trade agreement for that
social structure and government to me makes little sense.
The House of Representatives delayed the bill for several months. If
it gets to this body, I am hopeful Members will do the right thing and
say to President Bush: It is not time to do a trade agreement. This
trade policy in our country has failed. It is not working for our
country, it is not working for our national security, it is not working
for our communities, it is not working for our families, and it is not
working to build the middle class in this society the way we should.
I yield the floor.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CLARENCE W. DUPNIK

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of
America's finest, Clarence W. Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima County, AZ, who
celebrates 50 years of law enforcement service to his community this
year.
Clarence Dupnik is known as a man of action, integrity, and
innovation. These skills have been invaluable to his 50 years of
service to Arizona, and the Nation.
Sheriff Dupnik began his career in law enforcement in 1958 as a
patrol officer with the city of Tucson Police Department, TPD. He held
various positions within the Tucson Police Department, rising to major
in charge of field operations by the time he retired from the TPD in
January 1977. From there, he was appointed chief deputy sheriff of Pima
County Sheriff's Department, and later appointed Pima County Sheriff in
1980.
Since 1980, Clarence Dupnik has been elected to seven consecutive
terms of office as Pima County Sheriff, a position in which he remains
today. Clarence Dupnik's many years of service to Pima County represent
a remarkable achievement and a great responsibility.
During his tenure as sheriff, the population of Pima County has
nearly doubled in size. Today it claims almost 400,000 residents,
making it the second-highest populated county in Arizona. In addition,
Pima County shares 123 miles of border with the nation of Mexico. These
characteristics have brought on special challenges, which Sheriff
Dupnik met head on, with an admirable commitment to crime reduction.
Over the last three decades, Sheriff Dupnik has been instrumental to
the reduction of the per capita crime rate in Pima County. He has
fought criminal enterprises, drug trafficking organizations, and gangs.
He also worked with former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona to
improve law enforcement capabilities by integrating special weapons and
tactics with emergency medical assistance. Additionally, he had the
foresight to deploy 350 new mobile data computers in all Sheriff's
patrol vehicles--both patrol and unmarked--before most other
departments in Arizona. Sheriff Dupnik also participated in the Joint
Terrorism Task Force and served on the Executive Committee of the FBI.
Using his many years of law enforcement experience and leadership
skills, Clarence Dupnik has worked hard to improve and give back to his
community in any way he can. He introduced Drug Abuse Resistance
Education, DARE, and School Resource Officer programs in Pima County
schools. In addition, Sheriff Dupnik instituted a countywide community
policing program, created the Multi-agency Narcotic Investigations
Unit, and established the Command Group of the Arizona Alliance
Planning Committee. In addition, he founded and chairs a drug-
prevention group called Arizona for a Drug-Free Workplace.
The dedication and service of Clarence Dupnik during his 50-year law
enforcement career is truly commendable. I thank Sheriff Dupnik for his
many years of service and wish him further success in the years to
come. I know that these years of public service have sacrificed time
from his family and I would like to take this moment to also thank and
acknowledge his wife Susie and their family. With Sheriff Dupnik's
great example in mind, I hope that we can all work together to reduce
crime in our Nation.

____________________

HONORING DR. JAMES HANSEN

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. James Hansen
upon receiving the Desert Research Institute's Nevada Medal for 2008.
This award, which will be formally presented to Dr. Hansen in Reno
tonight and in Las Vegas on April 17, was established 20 years ago by
the Desert Research Institute, DRI, to recognize outstanding
achievements in science and engineering. DRI is a world leader in the
study of environmental sciences, and Dr. Hansen should be proud to
receive such an honor.
Dr. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and
is an adjunct professor of Earth sciences at Columbia University's
Earth Institute. He received his bachelor's degree from the University
of Iowa in 1963, followed by his master's in 1965, and his Ph.D. in
1967. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995, and
has received numerous awards throughout his illustrious career.
Dr. Hansen has spent decades researching climate change, and his work
has broadened public knowledge about accelerating changes in the
climate due to global warming. He has linked human-produced emissions
to an overall increase in global temperature and called for
international cooperation to address the issue. Dr. Hansen highlights
the dangerous path we tread if we fail to reduce our reliance on fossil
fuels. At the same time, he has outlined the steps that need to be
taken in order to reverse the course of global warming and stabilize
our climate.
I am proud to honor Dr. James Hansen and his many achievements. The
contributions that he has made to the scientific community are truly
invaluable. I applaud his efforts and wish him the best in his future
endeavors.

____________________

TREATING VICTIMS OF STROKE MORE EFFECTIVELY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a recent article in the Washington Post
highlights the serious additional harm that is being done to victims of
stroke each and every day by our failure to get them as quickly as
possible to hospitals or other treatment centers qualified to provide
the timely, appropriate care that can make all the difference between
recovery and permanent disability or death.
Not all hospitals have this capability, and Massachusetts and a
handful of other States have begun implementing systems to make better
quality care available and to inform the public and emergency medical
services of the location of the nearest facility capable of providing
such care. What is needed most, however, is national leadership to make
prompt and quality care for stroke victims a reality throughout this
country.
I believe our colleagues in the Senate and House will be interested
in this important article, and I ask unanimous consent to have it
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the
Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2008]

New Rules on Stroke

Care Center Networks May Save Lives

(By Alicia Ault)

In the event of a stroke, time is brain--meaning the more
quickly you recognize the problem and get proper medical
treatment, the more likely you are to survive and minimize
neurological damage. Increasingly, experts are concluding
that means getting to the right hospital, and fast.
According to the American Stroke Association and many
neurologists, the right facility is one that has been
designated by a state agency or the Joint Commission (which
accredits hospitals for quality and safety) as having the
appropriate medical staff, the ability to quickly administer
such diagnostic tests as computed tomography, and a
potentially lifesaving drug, tissue plasminogen activator
(TPA), which dissolves clots.
In some states, including Maryland, you don't have to worry
about which hospital might be best. Ambulance crews who
suspect a stroke are required to seek out a designated stroke
center, unless the nearest one is an unreasonable distance
away.
Now health officials in Virginia and the District say they
are considering similar plans.

[[Page 5973]]

In March, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed a bill
requiring local health officials to rush stroke patients to
Joint Commission-certified primary stroke centers. Even
though that law has not yet taken effect, emergency medical
technicians typically route patients to stroke centers, said
Paul Sharpe, trauma and critical care coordinator for
Virginia's Office of Emergency Medical Services.
In Washington, Michael Williams, medical director of Fire
and Emergency Medical Services, said he soon will issue a
protocol requiring transport of suspected stroke patients to
Joint Commission-certified stroke centers. That rule should
take effect within a month or so.
Until those changes take place, Virginia and District
residents might be wise to know the signs of stroke. If they
suspect they're having a stroke, they then, directly or
through a family member acting on their behalf, might ask to
be taken to a specialized stroke center.
About 780,000 Americans have a stroke each year. The vast
majority of strokes, 87 percent, are ischemic, caused by a
clot that cuts off blood supply to the brain, according to
the American Heart Association.
TPA, when given within three hours of the onset of a
stroke, can increase the chances of a full neurologic
recovery by at least 25 percent, said Robert Bass, executive
director of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical
Services Systems, or MIEMSS. But the drug's associated risks,
which include major bleeding in the brain, make it even more
crucial to get care at the right facility, Bass said.
Finding a hospital that specializes in stroke care is even
more important at a time when most are having trouble finding
specialists to ``take call''--that is, to see patients at the
hospital.
There are no hard numbers on the shortage, but the American
College of Emergency Physicians reported in 2006 that three-
quarters of emergency departments nationwide had problems
finding specialists such as neurosurgeons to take call. The
shortage was especially acute in orthopedics, plastic surgery
and neurosurgery.
Being seen by a neurology specialist doesn't guarantee a
good stroke outcome. But it is crucial to have a physician
trained in stroke care, said Lee Schwamm, vice chairman of
the neurology department and director of acute stroke
services at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
``Many people assume that stroke can be and is treated by
anyone,'' he said, which simply isn't true.
Massachusetts was the first state to create a stroke care
system, in 2004, partly because of the problem of getting on-
call specialists. Under the plan, designated hospitals agree
to have the appropriate diagnostics and staff (including
neurologists on duty or available through telemedicine) and
the ability to give TPA within three hours. They also agree
to report on the quality of care.
In mid-2005, the state began requiring ambulances to take
patients to stroke centers. Within a year, the number of
stroke patients receiving TPA increased by 20 percent,
Schwamm said. Now the goal is to increase the number of
patients who get to the hospital in time, he added. Sixty-
eight of the state's 72 hospitals have been designated as
stroke centers by the Massachusetts health department.
Several states have followed Massachusetts's lead,
including Maryland (in 2007), New York, New Jersey and
Florida.
Maryland hospitals that apply for the stroke center
designation are evaluated by a state inspection team.
Hospitals can also be certified by the Joint Commission.
The nonprofit commission began certifying stroke centers in
2003. So far, 455 hospitals nationwide have received that
designation.
Twenty-eight hospitals have received Maryland's five-year
stroke center certification. These hospitals can evaluate
stroke patients, give the initial treatment and, in most
cases, admit patients directly to a special stroke unit in
the hospital, Bass said. Since the program's establishment,
the number of patients receiving clot-busting therapy has
increased 20-fold, said John Young, stroke system coordinator
for MIEMSS.
Like the District, Virginia does not have its own stroke
center certification process.
Certification isn't a guarantee of superior care, said
Ralph Sacco, chairman of the American Stroke Association's
Stroke Advisory Committee and chairman of neurology at the
Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami. But
it's an indicator that the hospital has the infrastructure in
place--and the commitment--to deliver high-quality treatment,
he and Schwamm agreed.
What should you do if you think you or a loved one are
having a stroke?
The keys to a good outcome, Schwamm said, are knowing the
warning signs, calling 911 immediately and getting to a
primary stroke center.
He and others say they hope that every state adopts a
system to require transport to those centers. It could be a
lifesaving trip.

____________________

FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE VIRGINIA TECH TRAGEDY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 16, 2008, marks the first
anniversary of the horrific incident at Virginia Tech that resulted in
the tragic deaths of 32 students and faculty members and serious
injuries to many other innocent victims. Our hearts go out to the
victims' families as they mourn their loved ones who tragically lost
their lives before their time. Our sympathies also go out to the
survivors of this terrible incident, as well as the entire Virginia
Tech community, whose resilient spirit and courage in the face of
tragedy over the past year have been truly remarkable.
We cannot reverse the senseless violence of one year ago, nor can we
repair all of the damage that the heinous acts of one very disturbed
young man caused for an entire community. But one thing we can do to
honor the victims and their families is ensure that our schools,
colleges, and universities have the support and resources they need to
protect our children.
Regrettably, 1 year after the tragic events at Virginia Tech, little
has been done at the national level to address the dangers our students
continue to face. Over the past 12 months, we have continued to see
threatening conduct and, too often, deadly acts of violence involving
students of all ages. Only yesterday we learned that several colleges
were shut down as officials assessed graffiti messages threatening
violence on campus. School lockdowns are becoming all too common in our
communities.
A string of tragedies in just 1 week's time this past February
reminded us once again that our students face more than merely
threatening violent conduct. Between February 8 and February 14, at
least four incidents at schools and colleges resulted in death or
serious injury to students of all ages.
On February 8, a female student killed two other students, and then
herself, inside a classroom on the campus of Louisiana Technical
College in Baton Rouge. Three days later, a student at Mitchell High
School in Memphis, TN, was left in critical condition after a violent
incident in the school's cafeteria. A day later, a 15-year-old boy at
E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, CA, was critically wounded by a
classmate. He was later declared brain dead.
Then, on February 14, tragedy struck at Northern Illinois University.
A former student opened fire in a geology class, killing 5 students and
wounding 16, before killing himself. As hundreds of mourners remembered
one of the Northern Illinois University victims at a funeral service,
more than 1,000 Virginia Tech students--many of the same students who
will grieve tomorrow for their lost friends, classmates, and
professors--gathered in solidarity for a candlelight vigil in
Blacksburg, VA.
Eight months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a step to make
our schools and college campuses safer when it reported the School
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, S. 2084.
Regrettably, the Senate has failed to take up and pass that bill to
improve school safety. The 1-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech
incident reminds us why this comprehensive legislation should be
considered and passed without further delay.
In originating the bill more than 8 months ago, the Judiciary
Committee showed deference to Gov. Tim Kaine and the task forces at
work in Virginia and sought to complement their work and
recommendations. Working with several Senators, including Senators
Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, the committee
originated this bill and reported it at the start of the 2007 academic
year in the hope that Congress would adopt these critical school safety
improvements last fall. We worked hard to get it done.
The incidents at E.O. Green Junior High, Mitchell High School,
Louisiana Technical College, and Northern Illinois University are just
a few of the tragic events that have claimed lives or resulted in
serious injuries to students since the Virginia Tech tragedy. In the
time since this bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, we
have seen tragic deaths at Delaware State University and the University
of Memphis and grievous injuries sustained by students and teachers at

[[Page 5974]]

SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland, OH. And there have been numerous
lockdowns nationwide as a result of threatening conduct in our schools,
including recent lockdowns at Fern Creek High School in Louisville, KY,
and St. Peter's College in Jersey City, NY.
The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act would address
the problem of violence in our schools in several ways. The bill
authorizes Federal assistance for programs to improve the safety and
security of our schools and institutions of higher education, provides
equitable benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions,
including bulletproof vests, and funds pilot programs to develop
cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The
bill also clarifies and strengthens two existing statutes--the
Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act--which are designed to improve public safety.
Specifically, the bill would improve the safety and security of
students both at the elementary and secondary school level and on
college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a
bill that Senator Boxer introduced right after the Virginia Tech
tragedy, and I want to thank Senator Boxer for her hard work on this
issue. The improvements include increased funding for much needed
infrastructure changes to improve security as well as the establishment
of hotlines and tip-lines, which will enable students to report
potentially dangerous situations to school administrators before they
occur.
To address the new realities of campus safety in the wake of Virginia
Tech and more recent college incidents, the bill also creates a
matching grant program for campus safety and security to be
administered out of the COPS Office of the Department of Justice.
The grant program would allow institutions of higher education to
apply, for the first time, directly for Federal funds to make school
safety and security improvements. The program is authorized to be
appropriated at $50 million for the next 2 fiscal years. While this
amounts to just $3 per student each year, it will enable schools to
more effectively respond to dangerous situations on campus.
The bill would also make sworn law enforcement officers who work for
private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for
death and disability benefits and for funds administered under the
Byrne Grant Program and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.
Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our
Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of
the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers
who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. The
leadership of Senator Jack Reed has been vital in this area.
The bill also helps law enforcement by making improvements to the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, LEOSA. These amendments to
existing law will streamline the system by which qualified retired and
active officers can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we
permit qualified officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law
enforcement and no adverse employment history, to protect themselves,
their families, and their fellow citizens wherever those officers may
be.
The bill focuses on prevention as well, by incorporating the
PRECAUTION Act at the request of Senators Feingold and Specter. This
provision authorizes grants to develop prevention and intervention
programs for our schools.
Finally, the bill incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of
2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy.
The Virginia Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Kaine
to study the Virginia Tech tragedy--has issued its findings based on a
4-month investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill
would adopt a number of recommendations from the Review Panel aimed at
improving school safety.
We must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives
nationwide and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our kids.
The Senate should move forward and act. I hope those who are holding up
this legislation will reconsider their position today as we prepare to
remember and to honor those who so tragically lost their lives, and
those who had their lives changed forever, in the most deadly incident
on a college campus in our Nation's history.
The Senate should move forward to invest in the safety of our
students and to better support law enforcement officers across the
country by considering and passing the School Safety and Law
Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007.

____________________

CAPITAL AREA DISTRICT LIBRARY 10TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since the first library society was formed
in Detroit in 1817, libraries have played a central role in the
cultural and economic development of the people of Michigan. Nearly 200
years after that first foray into book-sharing, libraries have spread
across our State. Today I would like to take a moment to recognize the
Capital Area District Library in Ingham County, which is celebrating a
decade of enriching the Lansing area, and in doing so has continued the
long history of libraries making important contributions to our State.
The Capital Area District Library system plays a significant role in
the early stages of learning for children in Lansing, and provides
important resources for continuing education for adults. The 13
libraries and the book mobile are places where all are welcome to
access and pursue a wealth of information. Patrons can work on their
own, in organized programs, or with the assistance of the highly
effective library staff, who are focused on promoting learning and
enjoyment.
The resources available through the Capital Area District Library
also play a critical role in economic development. Considering that
more than half of all American households do not have computers or
Internet access, the Capital Area District Library resources are more
important than ever to connect our citizens to technology and
information in this rapidly changing world.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote to John Adams, ``I cannot live without
books.'' Books and education were a bedrock of life for our Nation's
Founding Fathers and of our democracy; books and education and new
learning resources that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined
must be readily available to citizens across the country. The Capital
Area District Library continues to fulfill this need in Lansing and
Ingham County, and has done so for 10 years with remarkable
effectiveness. I congratulate all who have worked so hard on this
venture, and extend my deepest appreciation for their service to the
citizens of our State.

____________________

IRS PRIVATE DEBT COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today is April 15, the day when millions
of Americans are hurrying to file their income tax forms to meet the
midnight deadline. Many of my colleagues have spoken today about the
need to make more effective and responsible use of Federal tax dollars,
and I agree that we must do so. One place to start is with the IRS's
own private debt collection program.
Today, the Washington Post reported that the Internal Revenue
Service's use of private debt collection agencies is expected to cost
taxpayers more than $37 million this year. Throughout our Nation's
history, the Federal Government had always assumed responsibility for
tax collection. But in 2004, through legislation that I opposed,
Congress gave the IRS authority to use private debt collection
companies to collect undisputed tax debts of less than $25,000. The
companies also would receive a 25-percent commission on all receipts.
Although the stated goal was to improve the efficiency of tax
collections, it is clear that this plan is not working.
In fact, even before Congress adopted this approach, former IRS
Commissioner Charles Rossotti estimated, in a

[[Page 5975]]

2002 report to the IRS Oversight Board, that if Congress were to
appropriate an additional $296 million to hire more compliance
employees, the agency could collect an additional $9.47 billion. In
other words, every dollar spent on collection would net $31. But rather
than increase the number of IRS employees, Congress ignored
Commissioner Rossotti's advice and instead spent scarce taxpayer funds
to privatize IRS functions, with dismal results.
In March 2008, Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, reported
to Congress that the program actually is losing money. Testifying
before the House Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Olson said that the IRS
is losing at least $81 million a year by using private debt collection
companies. The IRS spent $71 million to start the program and it spends
$7.65 million annually to operate it, plus on average $4.6 million in
commissions that are paid to the private collectors. Despite using
aggressive tactics, the companies have collected only $49 million,
little more than half of what it has cost the IRS to implement the
program. By contrast, Ms. Olson testified, and I quote, ``if the
program did not exist and the IRS instead allocated $7.65 million in
appropriated funds to its automated collection system, ACS, function,
the return on investment would be vastly greater. IRS data shows that
the average return on investment for the ACS program is about 20:1,
which would mean that an expenditure of $7.65 million would generate
annual revenue of $153 million.'' Ms. Olson then recommended that the
private debt collection initiative be terminated. I concur.
The privatization initiative is also putting millions of Americans'
personal information at risk. I do not believe that Americans want
private collection agencies tio have access to their sensitive,
personal information that should only be reserved for the Federal
Government and the qualified, trained, accountable personnel who work
at the IRS.
The Ways and Means Committee recently considered legislation that
would repeal the IRS's authority to use private debt collection
agencies. The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act was reported
out of committee in a bipartisan vote. My distinguished colleague from
North Dakota has introduced similar legislation that would prohibit the
IRS from using private debt collection companies, and I am pleased to
be an original cosponsor of that bill.
The private debt collection program also has generated considerable
confusion among taxpayers. Under the rules of the program, collectors
cannot say they are working for the IRS or that they are calling about
a tax matter without first receiving proof of a taxpayer's identity.
This has led to numerous complaints from consumers who have received
calls from collectors, pressing them to provide Social Security numbers
and other personal information without first identifying the purpose of
the call. Citizens are justifiably fearful of being scammed, and so
they refuse to provide the companies with any information. By any
measure, this program is not working.
Mr. President, the private debt collection experiment has failed. Tax
collection is a fundamental responsibility of Government, and Congress
should provide the IRS with the staff and other resources needed to
fulfill this responsibility, not enrich private companies at the
expense of American taxpayers. Today on April 15--Tax Day--millions of
Americans are rushing to file their taxes before the midnight deadline.
Many are writing checks to the IRS, and so it is an appropriate time to
reconsider the millions of dollars they are spending on the private
debt collection program. It is time for this body to pass Senator
Dorgan's bill and end this inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

____________________

HONORING OUR MILITARY

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the
courage and selflessness of the men and women serving so bravely in
America's military and, in particular, to acknowledge those from my
home State of Nebraska. Last week, the testimony of GEN David Petraeus
and Ambassador Ryan Crocker before the Senate on the situation in Iraq
reminded everyone of the personal sacrifices of the men and women and
their families who are serving their country in support of Operations
Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
The United States is engaged in a protracted war for the first time
since the end of the military draft 35 years ago. The strains of this
prolonged engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan are underscored by the
burdens placed on our service members and their families. The voluntary
nature of our military accentuates these burdens, being borne by a
relative few. This present situation is unique compared to America's
past military engagements. World Wars I and II and the conflicts in
Korea and Vietnam relied on conscription; consequently, the effects of
these wars were felt by a broad number of ordinary Americans. Today,
the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed our soldiers and
military families in an extraordinary situation.
I have visited Iraq four times and Afghanistan twice since the
commencement of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom and have
met with countless soldiers and their families. Each of these visits
and meetings has further elevated my personal gratitude and
appreciation of these men and women, and consequently, these soldiers
and their families are constantly at the forefront of my thoughts. Last
week, a news story described the battle of Sadr City, a district in
Baghdad, Iraq, and featured a young man whom I had watched grow up in
Nebraska. This news story evoked those same feelings of deep gratitude
and immense pride.
The soldier featured in the story was Army CPT Logan Veath, of
Chadron, NE. I had last seen Captain Veath 5 months ago at a reunion of
the Big Red Battalion, the University of Nebraska's Reserve Officers'
Training Corps, ROTC, unit, of which he was a member while attending
our shared alma mater. I had first met Captain Veath when he was 16
years old, and we reminisced at that reunion of our past experiences
together. Captain Veath was dressed in cowboy attire--because that is
exactly what he is in Nebraska. In fact, I almost didn't recognize him
in the news story from Iraq, as he had a Kevlar helmet on his head
instead of his usual cowboy hat.
Captain Veath's entire family was also at the reunion, and they
provided a brief glimpse into how a family copes with a loved one who
is called upon to serve tours of duty lasting from 12 to 15 months.
Captain Veath is unique in that this is his sixth tour of duty serving
in Iraq or Afghanistan. Less than 1 percent of Army service members
have been deployed six times; this speaks to Captain Veath's remarkable
dedication and selflessness.
That day was a vivid reminder of our American soldiers, who must
leave their loved ones in order to serve in battles nearly 7,000 miles
away from their homes. Today, I offer my most sincere appreciation and
gratitude to soldiers such as Army CPT Logan Veath. We must never
forget these brave men and women, who have valiantly and selflessly
served their country, together with their families, who provide them
with immeasurable support. Their honor in service must remain a source
of inspiration for us all.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

HONORING JENNIFER JOY WILSON

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Jennifer Joy
Wilson. For the past decade, Ms. Wilson has served first as the head of
the National Stone Association, and then after the merger of two
similar groups, as the president and CEO of the National Stone, Sand &
Gravel Association, NSSGA. Based in Alexandria, VA, NSSGA is the
world's largest mining association by product volume. Its member
companies represent more than 90 percent of the crushed stone and 70
percent of the sand and gravel produced annually in the United States
and approximately

[[Page 5976]]

118,000 working men and women in the aggregates industry. During 2006,
a total of about 2.95 billion metric tons of crushed stone, sand and
gravel, valued at $21 billion, were produced and sold in the United
States.
This year Ms. Wilson has been given the distinguished honor of being
selected as AggMan of the Year by Aggregates Manager magazine, one of
the construction aggregates industry's leading trade publications.
During her tenure, the NSSGA led an effort to improve employee safety
in the aggregate industry by developing new safety procedures, called
Part 46, for the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration, MSHA. The
joint industry-labor effort produced a proposal ``that would apply
better to our industry and provide managers and workers with effective
means to prevent accidents and fatalities.'' By all accounts, Part 46
has shown remarkable success in reducing employee injuries.
On February 11, 2003, an alliance between NSSGA and MSHA was
announced. Signed at the NSSGA's Centennial Convention in Orlando, FL,
the agreement calls for the two bodies to work closely together on the
promotion of safe working conditions, the development of effective
miner training programs, and the expansion of the mine safety and
health outreach and communication. ``For the first time ever, MSHA and
an industry association have jointly agreed to adopt safety and health
performance goals with objective measures,'' then MSHA Administrator
Dave Lauriski said during that meeting. ``This alone is unprecedented .
. . NSSGA is again showing its leadership.''
On the environmental front, Ms. Wilson led the industry in investing
in a study ``righting an assumption we just didn't believe was right.''
Through the efforts of the association and its members, it was
determined that the aggregates industry is not a major emitter of PM-
10--a particular type of air pollutant. The final regulations reflected
the investment by the industry in recognizing that aggregate operations
are not a major source of coarse particulate matter.
Considering almost half of all crushed stone, sand and gravel
produced in the United States is used for building the Nation's
transportation infrastructure, Ms. Wilson has led her members in
establishing a strong grassroots presence connecting the industry's
workforce with their elected officials while increasing their activity
on Capitol Hill. Leveraging the association's resources, Ms. Wilson has
also worked closely with industry coalitions to advocate for sound and
sensible transportation policies.
Ms. Wilson has also worked to raise awareness of the public,
legislators, and of regulators at all levels to the immeasurably
important role aggregates play in maintaining America's high quality of
life. She calls this effort ``romancing the stone'' which includes her
leadership in establishing The Rocks gallery at the Smithsonian's
National Museum of Natural History and creating a permanent endowment
to support the gallery, all totaling more than $3.1 million.
Many people have been able to take credit for industry
accomplishments, but selection as AggMan of the Year denotes something
not everyone can lay claim to--respect of one's peers. For this reason
I stand here today to take a moment and congratulate a woman who has
done so much for America and the good people in the aggregates industry
all the while earning their respect.

____________________

RECOGNIZING NORTH SEATTLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize the
North Seattle Community College, in my home State of Washington, as a
local leader in sustainability practices. The work of North Seattle
Community College, and especially of the North Seattle Community
College Sustainability Committee, has made significant contributions to
raising awareness of sustainability issues in everyday life on the
campus.
Created in 2005, the North Seattle Community College Sustainability
Committee holds regular meetings to coordinate sustainability practices
with faculty, staff, administrators, students, and interested local
residents. This committee has helped to create and implement an
impressive list of community-wide activities including: sustainability
curriculum, courses, and service learning opportunities; a Web site
with useful resources; and an annual Earth Day celebration.
The North Seattle Community College Sustainability Committee also
helped incorporate new resource management practices into campus
operations and expanded the campus trail system. By providing these
services, the North Seattle Community College Sustainability Committee
has done a wonderful job of engaging students, teachers, and local
citizens.
I believe that in order to truly embrace the opportunities and
challenges of tomorrow, the youth of our Nation must have access to
programs that foster stewardship and long-term commitment to community
awareness. Washington State is fortunate to have schools like North
Seattle Community College, which is a natural arena for the kind of
innovation our Nation needs in order to embrace new environmentally
friendly practices. Green programs and activities are critical to the
development of environmentally aware citizens. I was proud to introduce
the Higher Education Sustainability Act to help provide resources for
college and universities to implement sustainability programs, and my
hope is that schools like North Seattle Community College will continue
to serve as great role models for other colleges around the Nation as
they work on sustainability issues.
It is inspiring to see that the issue of sustainability is bringing
people together, and I am proud North Seattle Community College is
empowering the entire campus to work on positive solutions. I am sure
North Seattle Community College will continue to be successful in
inspiring change and providing continued leadership on this important
issue.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, with Earth Day just a week away,
I wish to recognize the steps colleges and universities in my State are
taking to increase public awareness about the effect our daily actions
have on the environment. Specifically, I would like to applaud the
commitment North Seattle Community College has made to incorporate
sustainable practices into everyday life at the college and local
level.
Sustainability, the simple idea that we can meet the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs is a concept that is relevant to our lives now more
than ever. Today, our reliance on fossil fuels is not only exacerbating
economic woes, it is driving too many of our foreign policy decisions
and fueling the detrimental forces of climate change. It is time we
shift our focus to sustainable practices that encourage a cleaner
environment, healthier communities, a stronger economy, and most
importantly, national security.
My home State of Washington has always been a leader when it comes to
environmental sustainability. For 75 years we have been on the cutting
edge of utilizing natural resources to create sustainable, clean
emissions power. I think that Washingtonians, living next door to some
of the most pristine river valleys and snowcapped peaks in the world,
realize how unfair it would be if our great-grandchildren couldn't do
the same.
Furthering our State's environmentally conscious tradition, in the
spring of 2005, North Seattle Community College president Dr. Ron
LaFayette put NSCC on track to be a leader in the sustainability
movement by creating a standing advisory Sustainable Committee to
address issues of sustainability at the school.
The committee, made up of faculty, staff, administrators, students,
and interested citizenry, began meeting regularly in 2006. Since then,
it has spearheaded NSCC's efforts to become a local and national model
for sustainability practices.

[[Page 5977]]

The Sustainability Committee created and has begun to implement goals
that include creating and developing a fact sheet, Web site, and other
information-sharing methodology; creating and coordinating curriculum
around sustainability issues. This includes developing new stand-alone
courses, integrated studies programs, service learning and distance
learning opportunities; furthering the development of a campus trail
system, including a walking trail and an interpretive nature trail;
incorporating sustainable practices into campus operations--including
food service, waste management, and resource usage; and sponsoring the
annual Earth Week celebration. In 2007, this festival included guest
speakers and over 35 vendors including educational institutions,
environmental nonprofits, and neighborhood businesses.
I am personally encouraged by the attention North Seattle Community
College and other Washington State schools have given to advancing
sustainable practices in our schools and communities. I hope more
institutions of higher education will follow suit in years to
come.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, 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 and a withdrawal which were referred to the appropriate
committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

At 4:53 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 3548. An act to enhance citizen access to Government
information and services by establishing plain language as
the standard style for Government documents issued to the
public, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4881. An act to prohibit the awarding of a contract or
grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold
unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in
writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the
contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts,
and for other purposes.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

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

H.R. 4881. An act to prohibit the awarding of a contract or
grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold
unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in
writing to the agency awarding the contractor grant that the
contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 2731. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign
countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and
for other purposes (Rept. No. 110-325).

____________________

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. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 2855. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to adjust the dollar amounts used to calculate the credit for
the elderly and the permanently disabled for inflation since
1985; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ALEXANDER:
S. 2856. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide taxpayers a flat tax alternative to the current
income tax system; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 2857. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for the distribution of a share of certain mineral
revenues, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Smith,
and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2858. A bill to establish the Social Work Reinvestment
Commission to provide independent counsel to Congress and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on policy issues
associated with recruitment, retention, research, and
reinvestment in the profession of social work, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2859. A bill to amend the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974 to clarify limits on disclosure of
student health records, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Martinez):
S. 2860. A bill to diminish predatory lending by enhancing
appraisal quality and standards, to improve appraisal
oversight, to ensure mortgage appraiser independence, to
provide for enhanced remedies and enforcement, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 2861. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to prohibit the imposition of a separate fee for electronic
filing of returns and statements for individuals, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2862. A bill to provide for National Science Foundation
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration utilization
of the Arecibo Observatory; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 2863. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a Federal income tax credit for certain stem cell
research expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2864. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
include improvement in quality of life in the objectives of
training and rehabilitation for veterans with service-
connected disabilities, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 2865. A bill to permit qualified withdrawals from a
capital construction fund account under chapter 535 of title
46, United States Code, for gear or equipment required for
fishery conservation or safety of life at sea without regard
to the minimum cost requirement established by regulation; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2866. A bill to require greater disclosure of senior
corporate officer compensation, to empower shareholders and
investors to protect themselves from fraud, to limit
conflicts of interest in determining senior corporate officer
compensation, to ensure integrity in Federal contracting, to
close corporate tax loopholes utilized to subsidize senior
corporate officer compensation, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2867. A bill to authorize additional resources to
identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled
into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking
organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. Res. 514. A resolution congratulating the Boston College
men's ice hockey team on winning the 2008 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I National Ice Hockey
Championship; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Biden,
and Mr. Cornyn):
S. Res. 515. A resolution commemorating the life and work
of Dith Pran; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Feingold, and Mr. Casey):
S. Res. 516. A resolution solemnly commemorating the 25th
anniversary of the

[[Page 5978]]

tragic April 1983 bombing of the United States Embassy in
Beirut and remembering those who lost their lives and those
who where injured; considered and agreed to.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 186

At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) was added as a cosponsor of S. 186, a bill to
provide appropriate protection to attorney-client privileged
communications and attorney work product.

S. 267

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 267, a bill to amend the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that
territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants for
confronting the use of methamphetamine.

S. 268

At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 268, a bill to designate
the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, and for other purposes.

S. 358

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer)
were added as cosponsors of S. 358, a bill to prohibit discrimination
on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance
and employment.

S. 582

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 582, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify automatic fire sprinkler
systems as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation.

S. 638

At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 638, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for collegiate
housing and infrastructure grants.

S. 678

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 678, a bill to amend title
49, United States Code, to ensure air passengers have access to
necessary services while on a grounded air carrier and are not
unnecessarily held on a grounded air carrier before or after a flight,
and for other purposes.

S. 777

At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 777, a bill to repeal the
imposition of withholding on certain payments made to vendors by
government entities.

S. 970

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 970, a bill to impose
sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in
developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.

S. 1010

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) 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. 1120

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1120, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants for the training
of graduate medical residents in preventive medicine and public health.

S. 1390

At the request of Mr. Thune, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1390, a bill to provide for the issuance of a ``forever stamp'' to
honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women of the armed forces who
have been awarded the Purple Heart.

S. 1483

At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1483, a bill
to create a new incentive fund that will encourage States to adopt the
21st Century Skills Framework.

S. 1512

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1512, a bill to
amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to expand Federal
eligibility for children in foster care who have attained age 18.

S. 1638

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1638, a bill to adjust the
salaries of Federal justices and judges, and for other purposes.

S. 1711

At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1711, a bill to target
cocaine kingpins and address sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine.

S. 1926

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1926, a bill to establish the
National Infrastructure Bank to provide funding for qualified
infrastructure projects, and for other purposes.

S. 2021

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2021, a bill to provide
$50,000,000,000 in new transportation infrastructure funding through
bonding to empower States and local governments to complete significant
infrastructure projects across all modes of transportation, including
roads, bridges, rail and transit systems, ports, and inland waterways,
and for other purposes.

S. 2035

At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2035, a bill to
maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing
conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by
certain persons connected with the news media.

S. 2310

At the request of Mr. Martinez, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2310, a bill to establish a National Catastrophic Risks Consortium
and a National Homeowners' Insurance Stabilization Program, and for
other purposes.

S. 2368

At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2368, a bill to provide
immigration reform by securing America's borders, clarifying and
enforcing existing laws, and enabling a practical employer verification
program.

S. 2399

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2399, a bill to expand and improve housing
counseling services by increasing financial education and counseling
services available to homeowners and prospective homebuyers in
financial turmoil or who seek credit or other personal financial
assistance, and for other purposes.

S. 2485

At the request of Mr. Tester, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2485, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation of
physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment
Program, and for other purposes.

S. 2498

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the
Senator from

[[Page 5979]]

Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Boxer), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the
Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Michigan (Ms.
Stabenow), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs.
Lincoln), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from
Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator
from New York (Mr. Schumer), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Feingold) were added as cosponsors of S. 2498, a bill to authorize the
minting of a coin to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding
of Santa Fe, New Mexico, to occur in 2010.

S. 2505

At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the names of the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2505, a bill to allow employees of a
commercial passenger airline carrier who receive payments in a
bankruptcy proceeding to roll over such payments into an individual
retirement plan, and for other purposes.

S. 2510

At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2510, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to provide revised standards for
quality assurance in screening and evaluation of gynecologic cytology
preparations, and for other purposes.

S. 2598

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2598, a bill to increase
the supply and lower the cost of petroleum by temporarily suspending
the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

S. 2631

At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2631, a bill to award a
congressional gold medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in recognition of her
courageous and unwavering commitment to peace, nonviolence, human
rights, and democracy in Burma.

S. 2668

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

S. 2674

At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2674, a bill to amend
titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve and enhance procedures
for the retirement of members of the Armed Forces for disability and to
improve and enhance authorities for the rating and compensation of
service-connected disabilities in veterans, and for other purposes.

S. 2681

At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the names of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Bennett), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Tester), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) were added as cosponsors of S. 2681, a bill to require the
issuance of medals to recognize the dedication and valor of Native
American code talkers.

S. 2747

At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2747, a bill to grant a
Federal charter to the National American Indian Veterans, Incorporated.

S. 2756

At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2756, a bill to amend the National Child Protection
Act of 1993 to establish a permanent background check system.

S. 2758

At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the names of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Roberts) were added as cosponsors of S. 2758, a bill to
authorize the exploration, leasing, development, production, and
economically feasible and prudent transportation of oil and gas in and
from the Coastal Plain in Alaska.

S. 2760

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2760, a bill to amend title
10, United States Code, to enhance the national defense through
empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the functions of the
National Guard Bureau, and improvement of Federal-State military
coordination in domestic emergency response, and for other purposes.

S. 2771

At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from New
York (Mrs. Clinton) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2771, a bill to require the president to call
a White House Conference on Children and Youth in 2010.

S. 2775

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2775, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 and the Social Security Act to treat certain domestically
controlled foreign persons performing services under contract with the
United States Government as American employers for purposes of certain
employment taxes and benefits.

S. 2785

At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the names of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2785, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Security
Act to preserve access to physicians' services under the Medicare
program.

S. 2819

At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the names of the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2819, a bill to preserve access to
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program during an
economic downturn, and for other purposes.

S. 2839

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2839, a bill to provide emergency relief for
United States businesses and industries currently employing temporary
foreign workers and for other purposes.

S. 2840

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2840, a bill to
establish a liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite naturalization
applications filed by members of the Armed Forces and to establish a
deadline for processing such applications.

S. 2844

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2844, a bill
to amend the

[[Page 5980]]

Federal Water Pollution Control Act to modify provisions relating to
beach monitoring, and for other purposes.

S. RES. 500

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 500, a resolution
honoring military children during ``National Month of the Military
Child''.

S. RES. 506

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the names of the Senator
from Maine (Ms. Collins) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman)
were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 506, a resolution expressing the
sense of the Senate that funding provided by the United States to the
Government of Iraq in the future for reconstruction and training for
security forces be provided as a loan to the Government of Iraq.

S. RES. 513

At the request of Mrs. Dole, her name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Res. 513, a resolution congratulating the Army Reserve on its
centennial, which will be formally celebrated on April 23, 2008, and
commemorating the historic contributions of its veterans and continuing
contributions of its soldiers to the vital national security interests
and homeland defense missions of the United States.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Smith, and Mr.
Inouye):
S. 2858. A bill to establish the Social Work Reinvestment Commission
to provide independent counsel to Congress and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services on policy issues associated with recruitment,
retention, research, and reinvestment in the profession of social work,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I
rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr.
Social Work Reinvestment Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation
that will improve the shortage of social workers as we move into an era
of unprecedented healthcare and social service needs. Social workers
play a critical role combating the social problems facing our Nation.
We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning
soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain
their independence in the communities they live in, and abused children
are placed in safe homes. This bill reinvests in social workers by
providing grants to social workers, reviewing the current social
workforce challenges, and determining how this shortage will affect the
communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill
named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M.
Young. Dorothy Height, a pioneer of the civil rights movement, like me
began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social
justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights
movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a
social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and
has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers.
Congressman Towns introduced the companion bill in the House of
Representatives last month.
As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers
place in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be
found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health
clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals
and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling
students, returning soldiers, and chronically ill. Oftentimes, social
workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural
and underserved urban areas. The number of adults over the age of 65
will double by the year 2030 and social workers will be at the
forefront of providing compassionate care to this burgeoning community.
Yet there will not be enough social workers to meet these needs. Today
30,000 social workers specialize in gerontology, but we will need
70,000 of these social workers by 2010. I want to make sure that when
the aging tsunami hits us, we have the workforce in place to care for
our aging family members, the Alzheimer patients, the disabled.
This bill is about reinvesting in social work. It provides grants
that invest in social work education, research, and training. These
grants will fund community based programs of excellence and provide
scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. The bill
also addresses how to recruit and retain new social workers, research
the impact of social services, and foster ways to improve social
workplace safety. This bill establishes a national coordination center
that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to
collaborate and work together. It will facilitate gathering and
distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the
information we have on how social work service can improve our social
fabric. This bill also gives social work the attention is deserves. It
creates a media campaign that will promote social work, and recognizes
March as Social Work Awareness Month.
As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people
cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for
abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. Today I am
a social worker with power. I am proud to continue to fight every day
for the long range needs of the Nation, on the floor of the United
States Senate and as the Chairwoman of the Aging Subcommittee of the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to
serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action.
Social workers are our best and brightest, our most committed and
compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often
putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers
have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social
support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. That is why we must
reinvest in social work--we must recruit, retain and research. I think
we can do better by our Nation's troops, seniors, and children, by
making sure we have the social workforce in place to meet their needs.
I'm fighting to make sure we do.
The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work
Reinvestment Act is strongly supported by the National Association of
Social Workers and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work
Research. I want to thank Senators Stabenow, Smith, and Inouye for
their cosponsorship of this bill.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:

National Association of

Social Workers,

Washington, DC.
We, the undersigned professional social work organizations,
join with the National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
in showing our full support for the Dorothy I. Height and
Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. Social
workers provide indispensible services in nearly every
community nationwide and to millions of Americans including
aging baby boomers, wounded veterans, former prisoners, at-
risk students, abused and neglected children, and those
diagnosed with cancer, serious mental illness, and those with
HIV and AIDS. These essential services have a positive impact
on the mental, social, and psychosocial functioning of
clients across the country. While professional social workers
are more necessary today than at any other time in our
history, they are also facing barriers that challenge the
profession including insurmountable education debt,
insufficient salaries, and serious safety concerns.
The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work
Reinvestment Act takes important steps to ensure the future
viability of the social work profession. The legislation
explores the many successful efforts already undertaken by
our nation's social workers, while examining the persistent

[[Page 5981]]

challenges to these efforts. A Social Work Reinvestment
Commission will provide a comprehensive analysis of current
workforce trends and develop long-term recommendations and
strategies to maximize the ability of America's social
workers to serve their clients with expertise and care.
Demonstration programs will be funded in the areas of
workplace improvements, research, education and training, and
community-based programs of excellence. This investment will
be returned many times over both in support for effective
social service solutions and in direct services to client
populations.
The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work
Reinvestment Act is a commitment to ensure that social
workers can provide indispensable services for years to come.
The future of the profession depends on the measures that are
taken toward reinvestment today. We thank Senator Mikulski
for her dedication to and leadership of the social work
profession and urge every member of the Senate to show their
support for professional social workers as well as the
individuals, groups, and communities they serve.
Sincerely,
Action Network for Social Work Education and Research,
Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program
Directors, Association of Oncology Social Work,
Clinical Social Work Association, Council on Social
Work Education, Group for the Advancement of Doctoral
Education in Social Work, Institute for the Advancement
of Social Work Research, National Association of Deans
and Directors of Schools of Social Work, Social Welfare
Action Alliance, Society for Social Work and Research.
____

Institute for the Advancement

of Social Work Research,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2008.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: As the Institute for the Advancement
of Social Work Research (IASWR) celebrates its 15th
anniversary, this is an important opportunity to recognize
the strides that have been made in knowledge development and
research infrastructure development in social work over the
past decade and one half. However, the growing demands for
social work services, the focus on implementation of
evidence-based practices, and the need to address both
recruitment and retention of professional social workers,
requires that there be enhanced federal investments in the
social work profession. As the number of children in foster
care rises, as our population ages, as school drop-out rates
increase, and as deployed soldiers and returning veterans
require expanded access to health, mental health and social
services, the need for professional social workers at all
levels of practice and in all fields of practice has never
been greater.
IASWR would like to thank you for standing with your
profession in introducing the Dorothy I. Height/Whitney M.
Young Social Work Reinvestment Act in the Senate. This Act is
one important step in addressing workplace and workforce
issues faced by social workers. It will also provide
discretionary grants to implement best practice models in
social agencies and it provides incentive programs to attract
the next generation of social work practitioners and social
work researchers. Of particular importance will be the Social
Work Reinvestment Commission that will examine critical
issues and potential solutions facing the profession today.
As a social worker, I know that you recognize the
challenges faced by the social work profession, including low
salaries, high caseloads, lack of access to the latest
technology to facilitate service delivery, shrinking
availability of services, and concerns about safety. The
Social Work Reinvestment Act begins to address these
concerns.
Thank you for all of your leadership and commitment to
social work and to the millions of vulnerable individuals,
families and communities that we work with daily. IASWR and
the social work research community stands ready to work with
you. If you have questions or need additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Joan Levy Zlotnik,
Executive Director.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today, on World Social Work Day, to
introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work
Reinvestment Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator
Barbara Mikulski and Senator Debbie Stabenow in supporting this
important legislation to help ensure the sustainability of the social
work field. I look forward to continuing our collaboration on this bill
and other efforts to support the tremendous work of our nation's social
workers as they ensure the safety and welfare of our citizens in need
of guidance and protection.
Social workers in America face an array of issues that impact their
ability to stay in the profession. We know that as the U.S. population
increases and ages, caseworkers' caseloads continue to increase,
causing greater pressure to perform with ever decreasing resources.
Further, relatively low wages make it difficult for social workers to
stay in their profession long-term. These are just a few of the many
challenges they face. Those in the social work field need our support
in creating innovative ways to keep them in the profession they love
and therefore help the people in our communities who need their
expertise and compassion.
Unfortunately, my home State of Oregon is not immune to these
problems. We all know of the wonderful work that social workers do to
protect children from abuse and neglect. Particularly in parts of
Oregon where Methamphetamine abuse has caused widespread suffering,
social workers have risen to the occasion to ensure children get the
help that they need. However, less recognized is the work that they do
on behalf of our elderly. About 13 percent of Oregon's population is
persons over the age of 65, which is above the national average of
about 12.4 percent. This number is expected to increase dramatically in
coming years as our population continues to age, our seniors live
longer and we see more of our elderly with multiple chronic conditions.
Many of these elderly will depend on the help and guidance of social
workers to ensure their well being.
I encourage all of my colleagues to join me, Senator Mikulski and
Senator Stabenow in championing this legislation to support the needs
of our social workers. I look forward to its swift passage.
______

By Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2859. A bill to amend the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974 to clarify limits on disclosure of student health records,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. WEBB. 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. 2859

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 ``Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act Amendments of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Federal authorities charged with examining the tragic
shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 found that confusion
and overly-restrictive interpretations of Federal privacy
laws, State medical confidentiality laws, and regulations
unnecessarily impede the effective transfer of information
that could prove useful in averting tragedies. Some school
administrators are unaware of exceptions to Federal privacy
laws that could allow relevant information about a student's
mental health to be appropriately shared.
(2) The purpose of this Act is to eliminate ambiguity in
Federal education privacy law to ensure that the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) is not
interpreted as prohibiting information sharing between on-
campus and off-campus health care providers when both are
involved in treating a student. Such ``consults'' are
generally permitted by State medical confidentiality law, and
FERPA should not be interpreted as posing an additional
obstacle. The Virginia Tech Review Panel recommended that
changes to ``FERPA should explicitly explain how it applies
to medical records held for treatment purposes''. The panel
reported that misinterpretation of how student treatment
records are handled under FERPA as the main source of
confusion. FERPA protects the privacy of both student
education records and student treatment records from being
disclosed generally.
(3) The Virginia Tech Review Panel recommended that
Federal privacy laws should be amended to include ``safe
harbor'' provisions that would insulate a person or
organization from the loss of Federal education funding for
making a disclosure with a good faith belief that the
disclosure was necessary to protect the health or safety of a
student or member of the public at large. The Commission
further recommended that the Federal Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of

[[Page 5982]]

1974 (FERPA) be amended to clarify the ability of educational
institutions to disclose information in emergency situations
and to facilitate treatment of students at off-campus
facilities.
(4) Mental disorders frequently begin during youth.
Research supported by the National Institute of Mental Health
found that half of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin
by age 14; three quarters have begun by age 24.
(5) In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported 4,316 suicides among young adults aged
15-24, making it the third leading cause of death in this age
group. There were an additional 5,074 suicides among those
aged 25-34, making it the second leading cause of death in
this age group.
(6) Depression, mental illness, and suicide are problems
on college campuses. In 2006, 44 percent of college students
reported feeling so depressed it was difficult to function
and 9 percent seriously considered suicide, according to a
2006 national survey conducted by the American College Health
Association.
(7) While most people in the United States with a mental
disorder eventually seek treatment, a National Institute of
Mental Health study found pervasive and lengthy delays in
getting treatment, with the median delay across disorders
being nearly a decade. Over a 12-month period, 60 percent of
those with a mental disorder got no treatment at all.
(8) A 2006 survey sponsored by the American College
Counseling Association found that 9 percent of enrolled
students sought counseling last year and 92 percent of
counseling center directors reported an increase in the
number of students with severe psychological disorders.
(9) Recent events, including the campus shootings at the
Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois universities, have
further highlighted the deadly problems of mental illness and
violence in American schools. The Northern Illinois shooting
resulted in 6 deaths while the Virginia Tech killings left 32
people dead, making it the most lethal school shooting in
United States history.

SEC. 3. STUDENT HEALTH RECORDS.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20
U.S.C. 1232g) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Consultation With Off Campus Medical
Professionals.--Nothing in this section shall prohibit a
physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other recognized
healthcare professional or paraprofessional acting in the
individual's professional or paraprofessional capacity, or
assisting in that capacity, from consulting with or
disclosing records described in subsection (a)(4)(B)(iv) with
respect to a student, to a physician, psychiatrist,
psychologist, or other recognized healthcare professional or
paraprofessional acting in the individual's professional or
paraprofessional capacity, or assisting in that capacity,
outside the educational agency or institution in connection
with the provision of treatment to the student.''.

SEC. 4. SAFE HARBOR PROVISION.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20
U.S.C. 1232g) is amended in subsection (f) by adding at the
end the following: ``The release by an educational agency or
institution of education records or personally identifiable
information contained in such records in the good faith
belief that such release is necessary to protect against a
potential threat to the health or safety of the student or
other persons, shall not be deemed a failure to comply with
this section regardless of whether it is subsequently
determined that the specified conditions for such release did
not exist.''.

SEC. 5. EMERGENCY EXCEPTION AMENDMENT.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20
U.S.C. 1232g) is amended in subsection (b)(1)(I) by striking
``is necessary'' and all that follows and inserting ``is
necessary, according to the good faith belief of the
educational agency or institution or persons to whom such
disclosure is made, to protect against a potential threat to
the health or safety of the student or other persons; and''.
______

By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2864. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to include
improvement in quality of life in the objectives of training and
rehabilitation for veterans with service-connected disabilities, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed
Training and Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans Enhancement Act of
2008. This measure would make two small but, I believe, necessary
changes in the Department of Veterans' Affairs program of Independent
Living services conducted under the authority of chapter 31 of title
38, United States Code.
VA's IL Program was first established in 1980 by Public Law 96-466,
the Veterans Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980.
Initially, that law provided for the establishment of a 4-year pilot
program designed to provide independent living services for severely
disabled veterans for whom the achievement of a vocational goal was not
reasonably feasible. The number of veterans who could be accepted
annually into the pilot program was capped at 500. In 1986, the program
was extended through 1989 and then, in 1989, it was made in Public Law
101-237, the Veterans' Benefits Amendments of 1989. In 2001, the 500
annual cap on enrollees was increased to 2,500.
The measure I am introducing would remove any cap on the number of
enrollees in any year. In earlier years, as a pilot project, the cap
may have been appropriate in order to give VA an opportunity to manage
the program in the most effective manner possible and in 2001, it made
sense to increase that cap in light of the increased demand and need
for the program.
Now, however, it makes sense to lift the cap altogether. This is
especially so since this important program is designed to meet the
needs of the most severely service-connected disabled veterans and more
and more of those returning from combat have suffered the kind of
devastating injuries that may make employment not reasonably feasible
for extended periods of time.
The VA's Inspector General found, in a report issued in December of
last year, that ``the effect of the statutory cap has been to delay IL
services to severely disabled veterans.'' This delay happens because VA
has developed a procedure that holds veterans in a planning and
evaluation stage when the statutory cap may be in danger of being
exceeded.
The bill I am introducing today would eliminate the cap entirely as
recommended by VA's IG. It would also make the program mandatory rather
than a discretionary pilot effort and would include improvement in
quality of life an objective of training and rehabilitation for
veterans with service-connected disability who are participating in
programs of IL services. For these veterans--with respect to whom it
has been determined that employment is not a present, reasonably
feasible option but one that may be feasible in the future--it seems
appropriate to look not only at future employment prospects but also
toward improving the individual's quality of life. Such an approach may
very well lead to bettering an individual's chances of rehabilitation
and future employment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2864

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 ``Training and Rehabilitation
for Disabled Veterans Enhancement Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF LIFE AS
OBJECTIVE OF TRAINING AND REHABILITATION FOR
VETERANS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

(a) Inclusion in Services and Assistance Under Training and
Rehabilitation.--Section 3104(a)(15) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``and to improve a veteran's quality of
life''.
(b) Independent Living Services and Assistance.--
(1) Entitlement of certain veterans.--Section 3109 of such
title is amended by inserting before the period at the end
the following: ``and to improve such veteran's quality of
life''.
(2) Program of services and assistance.--Section 3120 of
such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``may'' and inserting
``shall''; and
(B) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at
the end of the first sentence the following: ``and to improve
such veteran's quality of life''.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF VETERANS ENROLLED
IN PROGRAMS OF INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES AND
ASSISTANCE.

Section 3120 of title 38, United States Code, as amended by
section 2 of this Act, is further amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e).

[[Page 5983]]

______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2865. A bill to permit qualified withdrawals from a capital
construction fund account under chapter 535 of title 46, United States
Code, for gear or equipment required for fishery conservation or safety
of life at sea without regard to the minimum cost requirement
established by regulation; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fisheries
Capital Construction Fund Enhancement Act of 2008. This bill will help
alleviate the potentially devastating economic impacts of recent
regulations on the lobster industry issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and simultaneously encourage conservation in our
Nation's fisheries and enhance the safety of the men and women who make
their living at America's most dangerous profession.
On October 5, 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS,
issued new regulations that will require ``fixed gear'' fishermen along
the Atlantic Seaboard, including lobstermen, to use sinking groundline
to connect their traps in large areas of the Gulf of Maine beginning
next fall. The rules are intended to prevent entanglements of
endangered whales in fishing gear. By NMFS's own estimates, this rule
will impose annual costs of approximately $14 million on our fisheries,
over 90 percent of which will be borne by the lobster industry. But a
report issued by the Government Accountability Office in August 2007
found the agency's economic analysis to be insufficient, and that it
could not estimate the extent to which these costly measures would
protect whales. While we must protect our endangered species, it is
senseless to impose ineffective measures on an already struggling
industry.
These regulations are particularly concerning given the additional
hardships our fishing communities currently face, especially down east
where lobster plays an integral role in the regional economy. The
groundfish industry, once the lifeblood of this region, is now
virtually non-existent, with just one active permit remaining east of
Penobscot Bay. Lobster has been the lone bright spot in recent years,
with annual landings throughout the state in the neighborhood of $300
million. Unfortunately, early returns for 2007 have declined by more
than 20 percent from the record highs of 2005 and 2006, and with fuel
and bait prices at record highs, the harvest numbers already are
leading to tightening budgets and dwindling profits. The bottom line is
that it is no exaggeration to say that these rules could put many
lobstermen out of business. The effect on fishing families, and even on
entire fishing communities, could be devastating.
Furthermore, these rules bring additional safety concerns to the
lobster industry. Many offshore areas in Maine have extremely rocky sea
floors. Sinking rope vastly increases the likelihood that the line will
chaff and snag, wearing the rope to the point that it can suddenly
snap, or pulling the boat's rail towards the waterline where it can
more easily be swamped and capsized by a large wave.
Passage of this bill would be a step toward alleviating the economic
and safety impacts of these rules by opening fishermen's individually
held Capital Construction Funds, or CCF's, to purchases of fishing gear
required to meet conservation measures required within a fishery or for
purchase of equipment to increase the safety of life at sea. Currently,
fishermen can deposit a portion of their pre-tax income into a CCF, and
that money can then be withdrawn for purchase or reconstruction of
fishing boats. Expanding the qualified withdrawals from these accounts
would reduce the safety and economic impacts of these and other fishing
regulations. Furthermore, this bill would provide an additional outlet
for the $221 million currently held in CCF's nationwide, limiting the
expansion of fishing capacity and enhancing conservation efforts by
reducing incentives to buy or upgrade existing vessels.
Our fisheries are the only remaining commercial wild capture
industries in the Nation; fishermen are the last commercial hunters. As
such, they must strike a unique balance between plying their trade and
protecting the resource and the environment that supports it. The
Nation's managers thus strive to balance the two parallel goals of
sustaining our fish stocks and the viability of our fishing industries.
The bill I introduce today will help achieve that balance by making
fishing gear required for conservation or safety purposes more
affordable for America's hard-working fishermen.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Reed, Kerry, Lieberman,
Whitehouse, Collins, and Kennedy for co-sponsoring this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2865

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 ``Fisheries Capital
Construction Fund Enhancement Act of 2008''.

SECTION 2. CERTAIN QUALIFIED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
WITHDRAWALS.

Section 53509 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph (1)
of subsection (a);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) of subsection (a) as
paragraph (3);
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) of subsection (a) the
following:
``(2) the acquisition of gear or equipment required for
safety of life at sea or to comply with conservation measures
within a fishery; or''; and
(4) by inserting after ``withdrawal.'' in subsection (c)
the following: ``The minimum cost requirements established by
such regulations (50 C.F.R. 259.31) shall not apply to a
withdrawal described in subsection (a)(2).''.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2867. A bill to authorize additional resources to identify and
eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by
violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest
Border Violence Reduction Act. This legislation is aimed at addressing
the drug-related violence that has plagued parts of Mexico and ensuring
that we dedicate the resources necessary to stop the flow of weapons
that help fuel this violence.
In the Mexican state of Chihuahua, which shares a border with New
Mexico, there have been over 200 killings since the beginning of 2008,
an increase of about 100 percent over the previous year. This violence,
which is mostly perpetrated by international drug trafficking
organizations, impacts the well-being and safety of communities on both
sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Recently it was reported that the entire police force in Palomas, a
Mexican town just across the border from Columbus, New Mexico, resigned
after repeated threats from drug traffickers. The Chief of Police fled
to the United States to seek asylum. On another recent occasion, the
Columbus Port of Entry was shut down after there were several killings
nearby. As a result, American school children who commute back and
forth over the border had to receive a police escort. And just
yesterday, the Department of State renewed a travel advisory warning of
the ongoing violence.
I have met with Mexico's Ambassador, Foreign Minister, and Attorney
General to raise serious concerns about the level of violence in the
region and to discuss ways to address this problem. I am pleased that
the Government of Mexico understands the gravity of this situation and
I appreciate Mexico's response in sending 2,000 troops to Chihuahua to
bring it under control. However, both Mexican and U.S. law enforcement
officials have stressed the need to more aggressively target the
criminal enterprises that are supplying weapons to drug cartels.
According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico
are trafficked from the United States because high-

[[Page 5984]]

powered weapons are much easier to purchase in the U.S. than in Mexico.
The drug cartels operating along the border smuggle illegal narcotics
into the United States and use revenue derived from the drug trade to
purchase the firearms they need to maintain control over drug
trafficking routes. According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms
recovered in Mexico originate from sources within the United States
because high-powered weapons, such as M-50s, are much easier to
purchase in the United States than in Mexico. The ability to fight drug
traffickers is significantly hampered by the fact that these violent
groups use smuggled weapons to assassinate military and police
officials, murder rival members of drug organizations, and kill
innocent civilians.
In order to reduce violence in the region and disrupt the drug trade,
it is essential that we aggressively work to prevent drug trafficking
organizations operating in Mexico from obtaining these weapons. This
effort requires that additional resources be allocated to target
weapons trafficking networks supplying these arms and enhanced
international cooperation in tracing the sources of weapons seized in
Mexico.
To this end, the legislation I am introducing today would authorize
additional resources to expand a successful ATF initiative, Project
Gunrunner, which is aimed at combating arms smuggling. The bill would
also increase the training and support of Mexican law enforcement in
investigating firearms trafficking cases.
Specifically, the legislation would enable ATF to hire, train, and
deploy an additional 80 special agents to establish and support seven
more Project Gunrunner Teams that are solely devoted to disrupting
firearm trafficking organizations smuggling weapons into Mexico. The
bill also would make it possible for ATF to place at least 12
additional special agents in Mexico to support Mexican law enforcement
in tracing seized firearms. Two Special Agents could be assigned to
U.S. Consulates throughout the border region, Guadalajara, Chihuahua,
Matamoros, Hermosillo, Tijuana, and Mazatlan, in conjunction with
existing DEA offices. Funds would cover salaries, protective and
investigative equipment, and other costs associated with maintaining a
foreign presence. And lastly, the legislation would significantly
increase ATF efforts to assist and train Mexican law enforcement
officers with weapons trafficking investigations. The bill authorizes
$24.5 million for each fiscal year 2009 and 2010 to implement this Act.
I strongly believe that it is essential that the U.S. enhance its
efforts to stop the flow of weapons being trafficked into Mexico, and I
hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 514--CONGRATULATING THE BOSTON COLLEGE MEN'S ICE
HOCKEY TEAM ON WINNING THE 2008 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION DIVISION I NATIONAL ICE HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Kerry) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 514

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 515--COMMEMORATING THE LIFE AND WORK OF DITH PRAN

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Cornyn)
submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 515

Whereas, between 1975 and 1979, Dith Pran dedicated his
life and journalistic career to preventing genocide by
exposing the atrocities perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge regime
in his native Cambodia;
Whereas Dith Pran, the subject of the Academy Award-winning
film ``The Killing Fields'', survived the genocide in
Cambodia in which up to 2,000,000 men, women, and children,
including most of Dith Pran's extended family, were killed by
the Khmer Rouge;
Whereas Dith Pran assisted many of his fellow journalists
who were covering the impending takeover of Cambodia by the
Khmer Rouge to escape unharmed from the country when the
capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, fell to the Khmer Rouge in
1975;
Whereas Dith Pran was subsequently imprisoned by the Khmer
Rouge, and for 4 years endured forced labor, beatings, and
unconscionable conditions of human suffering;
Whereas, in 1979, Dith Pran escaped from forced labor past
the Khmer Rouge's ``killing fields'', a term Mr. Dith created
to describe the mass graveyards he saw on his 40-mile journey
to a refugee camp in Thailand;
Whereas Dith Pran, in the words of New York Times Executive
Editor Bill Keller, ``reminds us of a special category of
journalistic heroism, the local partner, the stringer, the
interpreter, the driver, the fixer, who knows the ropes, who
makes your work possible, who often becomes your friend, who
may save your life, who shares little of the glory, and who
risks so much more than you do'';
Whereas Dith Pran moved to New York in 1980 and devoted the
remainder of his life and journalistic career to advocating
against genocide and for human rights worldwide;
Whereas Dith Pran educated people around the world about
the horrors of genocide in general, and the genocide in
Cambodia in particular, through his creation of the Dith Pran
Holocaust Awareness Project;
Whereas, in 1985, Dith Pran was appointed a United Nations
Goodwill Ambassador by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees;
Whereas Dith Pran lost his battle with cancer on March 30,
2008, leaving behind a world that better understands the
tragedy of the genocide in Cambodia and the need to prevent
future genocides, largely due to his compelling story,
reporting, and advocacy;
Whereas Dith Pran said, ``Part of my life is saving life. I
don't consider myself a politician or a hero. I'm a
messenger. If Cambodia is to survive, she needs many
voices.''; and
Whereas the example of Dith Pran should endure for
generations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) Dith Pran is a modern day hero and an exemplar of what
it means to be a citizen of the United States and a citizen
of the world;

[[Page 5985]]

(2) the United States owes a debt of gratitude to Dith Pran
for his tireless work to prevent genocide and violations of
fundamental human rights; and
(3) teachers throughout the United States should spread
Dith Pran's message by educating their students about his
life, the genocide in Cambodia, and the collective
responsibility of all people to prevent modern-day atrocities
and human rights abuses.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 516--SOLEMNLY COMMEMORATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE TRAGIC APRIL 1983 BOMBING OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN BEIRUT
AND REMEMBERING THOSE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES AND THOSE WHO WERE INJURED

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Casey) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:

S. Res. 516

Whereas, on April 18, 1983, terrorists detonated a bomb at
the United States Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63
people, including 42 American and Lebanese Embassy staff;
Whereas the bombing injured many other people, including 35
Embassy staff;
Whereas President Ronald Reagan denounced the ``vicious
terrorist bombing'' as a ``cowardly act''; and
Whereas the April 18, 1983 attack was at the time the
deadliest attack against a United States diplomatic mission
in history, but was followed by other terrorist attacks
against Americans in Beirut including the bombing of the
United States Marines barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983,
which killed 241 members of the United States Armed Forces,
the bombing of the United States Embassy annex in Beirut on
September 20, 1984, which killed 12 people, including 9
Embassy staff, and the bombing of a United States Embassy
vehicle on January 15, 2008, which injured 2 Lebanese
employees of the Embassy and killed 3 Lebanese passers by:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate, on the 25th anniversary of the
April 18, 1983, bombing of the United States Embassy in
Beirut, Lebanon--
(1) remembers the victims of the bombing;
(2) joins family and friends in mourning the American and
Lebanese victims who lost their lives in this tragic bombing;
(3) condemns all terrorist acts that deliberately target
the innocent; and
(4) reiterates its strong support for the people of Lebanon
and their Government as they seek to build a better future
free from the threat of terrorist violence.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 4527. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 1195, to amend the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4528. Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Pryor) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R.
1195, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

On page 97, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(1) in item number 273, by striking the project description
and inserting ``Improvements to on/off ramp system from I-10
to Ryan Street (LA 385), including installation of an exit
ramp for eastbound traffic on I-10, incorporating, as
necessary, portions of Front Street and Ann Street, and
including repair and realignment of Lakeshore Drive, and to
include the expansion of Contraband Bayou Bridge'';
______

SA 4528. Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Pryor) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 1195, to
amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 78, strike lines 3 and 4 and insert the following:
(386) in item number 3735 by striking the project
description and inserting ``Widening existing Highway 226,
including a bypass of Cash and a new connection to Highway
49''; and

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will
be held on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, at 3 p.m., in room SD-366 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following
bills: S. 662, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to evaluate resources at the Harriet Beecher
Stowe House in Brunswick, Maine, to determine the suitability and
feasibility of establishing the site as a unit of the National Park
System, and for other purposes; S. 827, to establish the Freedom's Way
National Heritage Area in the States of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, and for other purposes; S. 923 and H.R. 1528, to amend the
National Trails System Act to designate the New England National Scenic
Trail, and for other purposes; S. 956, to establish the Land Between
the Rivers National Heritage Area in the State of Illinois, and for
other purposes; S. 2073, to amend the National Trails System Act
relating to the statute of limitations that applies to certain claims;
S. 2513, to modify the boundary of the Minute Man National Historical
Park, and for other purposes; S. 2604, to establish the Baltimore
National Heritage Area in the State of Maryland, and for other
purposes; S. 2804, to adjust the boundary of the Everglades National
Park, and for other purposes; H.R. 53, to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into a long-term lease with the Government of the
United States Virgin Islands to provide land on the island of Saint
John, Virgin Islands, for the establishment of a school, and for other
purposes; and H.R. 1483 (Subtitles C, D, and F of title II, title III,
section 4006 of title IV, and titles V and VI only), to amend the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the
authorization for certain national heritage areas, 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 [email protected]
.gov.
For further information, please contact David Brooks or Rachel
Pasternack.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mr. KENNEDY. 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 April 15, 2008, at 10 a.m., to
conduct a hearing entitled ``Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Impact on
the Cost and Availability of Student Loans.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to
meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled
``Ending Abuses and Improving Working Conditions for Tomato Workers''
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in
room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, to

[[Page 5986]]

hear testimony on ``Tax: Fundamentals in Advance of Reform''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a
hearing on law of war treaties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at
10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Terrorism: Confronting
the Challenges of the Day After.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at
3:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Census in Peril: Getting the
2010 Decennial Back on Track, Part II.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on April 15, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 15,
2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on transportation safety, infrastructure security, and
water quality

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April
15, 2008 at 3 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to
hold a hearing entitled, ``Pharmaceuticals in the Nation's Water:
Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Maria Kate
Dowling, a detailee of Senator Kennedy's HELP Committee staff, be
granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Ledbetter
Fair Pay Restoration Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APRIL 1983 BOMBING OF THE
UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN BEIRUT

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 516, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 516) solemnly commemorating the 25th
anniversary of the tragic April 1983 bombing of the United
States Embassy in Beirut and remembering those who lost their
lives and those who were injured.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 25th anniversary
of the tragic April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. As we
speak, thousands of State Department employees are living and working
abroad, promoting U.S. interests and building stronger relations with
foreign governments and their peoples. While their work is always
important, it is also sometimes dangerous. The 25th anniversary of the
April 18, 1983, bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut reminds us of
this fact. On that sad day, the lives of 63 people, including 42
Americans and Lebanese members of the Embassy staff, were tragically
taken. In addition to those who lost their lives, many others were
injured, including 35 embassy personnel.
On April 18th, 2008, the State Department will host a commemoration
ceremony. Senior U.S. Government officials will join Ambassador Robert
Dillon, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon at the time of the bombing, and
over 100 family members of the victims to remember their sacrifice. The
U.S. Senate also joins in honoring the service of those who died,
mourning their death, and condemning all terrorist acts that
deliberately target the innocent. We also reiterate our unwavering
support for the people of Lebanon and their government as they seek to
build a better future free from the threat of terrorist violence.
Mr. BROWN. 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. 516) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 516

____________________

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, April 16; that following the prayer and the
pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning
hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for
use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of
morning business for up to 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak
for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority
controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final
half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration
of H.R. 1195, the highway technical corrections bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 5987]]

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:05 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MICHELE M. LEONHART, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
DRUG ENFORCEMENT, VICE KAREN P. TANDY, RESIGNED.

THE JUDICIARY

STEPHEN JOSEPH MURPHY III, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, VICE
PATRICK J. DUGGAN, RETIRED.
HELENE N. WHITE, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, VICE SUSAN BIEKE NEILSON,
DECEASED.

IN THE COAST GUARD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUAL FOR APPOINTMENT AS A
PERMANENT COMMISSIONED REGULAR OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD IN THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C.,
SECTION 211:

To be lieutenant

TREVOR M. HARE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUAL FOR APPOINTMENT AS A
PERMANENT COMMISSIONED REGULAR OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD IN THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C.,
SECTION 211:

To be lieutenant commander

SUSAN M. MAITRE

FOREIGN SERVICE

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSONS OF THE AGENCIES INDICATED FOR
APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE CLASSES
STATED.
FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS ONE,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

CRAIG LEWIS CLOUD, OF FLORIDA

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS TWO,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

JOHN CHARLES DOCKERY, OF TEXAS
MARY-KATHARINE RANKIN, OF TEXAS
ERICA KEEN THOMAS, OF MARYLAND
MARIKA RICHTER ZADVA, OF CALIFORNIA

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS THREE,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

RACHEL BICKFORD, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
FREDERICK H. GILES, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CYNTHIA M. GUVEN, OF VIRGINIA
ERIK W. HANSEN, OF VIRGINIA
RACHEL HODGETTS NELSON, OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

KIM FELICIA DUBOIS, OF FLORIDA
IRVIN HICKS, JR., OF MARYLAND
SARA K. HODGSON, OF MISSOURI
JEFFREY SCOTT WALDO, OF WYOMING

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS FOUR,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

MIRIAM LAILA AWAD, OF TEXAS
JARED BANKS, OF MARYLAND
ANNE WHITE BENJAMINSON, OF TEXAS
JOHN C. BERGEMANN, OF VIRGINIA
TIMOTHY DAVID BIRNER, OF MISSOURI
RUSSELL K. BROOKS, OF NEW JERSEY
NEDA A. BROWN, OF TENNESSEE
FREDERICK E. N. BRUST, OF NEW YORK
ANIA BURCZYNSKA CANAVAN, OF WASHINGTON
BENJAMIN CADE CANAVAN, OF FLORIDA
ANAMIKA CHAKRAVORTY, OF CALIFORNIA
AKUNNA E. COOK, OF MARYLAND
PETER J. COVINGTON, OF CALIFORNIA
MARIO CRIFO, OF TEXAS
JENNIFER J. DANOVER, OF MINNESOTA
JACQUELINE SAMARA DELEY, OF CALIFORNIA
BRIAN E. DENVER, OF VIRGINIA
VITO DIPAOLA, OF GEORGIA
ROBERT F. DOUGHTEN, OF MONTANA
LINDA A. FENTON, OF KANSAS
CYRIL M. FERENCHAK, OF FLORIDA
JOSHUA FISCHEL, OF IDAHO
DOUGLAS A. FISK, OF NEW MEXICO
ERIC GREGORY FLAXMAN, OF TEXAS
MARILYN R. GAYTON, OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXANDER C. GAZIS, OF NEW YORK
YVONNE MARIE GONZALES, OF CALIFORNIA
KATHERINE A. GREELEY, OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER JAMES HARRIS, OF VIRGINIA
LAUREN HOLT HANSEN, OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER DREW HOSTER, OF OHIO
KAREN W. HSIAO, OF UTAH
RODNEY MAX HUNTER, OF INDIANA
PAUL I. JUKIC, OF CONNECTICUT
HEATHER E. KALMBACH, OF PENNSYLVANIA
YOLANDA V. KERNEY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KRISTIN LOUISE KNEEDLER, OF FLORIDA
DANIEL D. KOSKI, OF TEXAS
BRIAN KRESSIN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SRINIVAS RAO KULKARNI, OF TEXAS
LAUREN MARCUS LADENSON, OF WASHINGTON
JILL MARY LARSON, OF MINNESOTA
LOWELL DALE LAWTON, OF NEVADA
ANDREW T. LEE, OF CALIFORNIA
EDWARD PAUL LUCHESSI, OF CALIFORNIA
LORA OMAN LUND, OF VIRGINIA
TODD HARRY LUNDGREN, OF WASHINGTON
ANDREW T. MACDONALD, OF TEXAS
ERIK J. MAGDANZ, OF CALIFORNIA
LATRANDA SHONTELL MARTIN, OF GEORGIA
MARIELLE HALLER MARTIN, OF INDIANA
MICHAEL J. MCKEOWN, OF TEXAS
TAWNIE A. MCNEIL, OF CALIFORNIA
ELISE MICHELLE MELLINGER, OF HAWAII
DENNY J. MEREDITH III, OF MISSOURI
KIMBERLY A. MORALES, OF PENNSYLVANIA
GREGORY LANE NAARDEN, OF TEXAS
LONG T. NGUYEN, OF CALIFORNIA
SUE ELLEN KRISTINE OSTREM, OF NEW JERSEY
MELINDA M. PAVEK, OF WYOMING
RAIMONDS PAVLOVSKIS, OF NEW YORK
JEAN L. PIERRE-LOUIS, OF FLORIDA
KRISTYNA L. RABASSA, OF MICHIGAN
ANNA RADIVILOVA, OF FLORIDA
CHRISTIAN WILLIAM REDMER, OF TENNESSEE
DOVAS A. SAULYS, OF ILLINOIS
MORDICA MICHELLE SIMPSON, OF FLORIDA
MATTHEW ANDERS SINGER, OF VIRGINIA
ROBIN DIANE SOLOMON, OF TEXAS
JOHN C. TAYLOR, OF WYOMING
YODCHIWAN DEW TIANTAWACH, OF OREGON
MATTHEW A. TOLLIVER, OF VIRGINIA
JESSICA MARIE TORRES, OF FLORIDA
ERIC RICHARD TURNER, OF VIRGINIA
ANDREW JOSEPH VADEN, OF TEXAS
JENNIFER R. VAN TRUMP, OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICK H. VENTRELL, OF COLORADO
RAJEEV M. WADHWANI, OF NEW JERSEY
JENNIFER D. WASHELESKI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CARL THOMAS WATSON, OF NEW YORK
GINA M. WERTH, OF NEVADA
DIANNE KAYE WEST, OF SOUTH DAKOTA
ALEXANDER WHITTINGTON, OF TEXAS
SARA S. YUN, OF VIRGINIA

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TO BE
CONSULAR OFFICERS AND SECRETARIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

TERESA HOWES, OF MICHIGAN
WILLIAM KUTSON, OF MARYLAND
JESSE LAPIERRE, OF VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

CAROLYN LEE AKER, OF VIRGINIA
JEEMES LEE AKERS, OF VIRGINIA
EUNJOO A. ALAM, OF VIRGINIA
PAUL R. ALLEN, OF VIRGINIA
ERIK M. ANDERSON, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SHRI A. ARORA, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RICHARD A. BAKEWELL, OF VIRGINIA
BENJAMIN BARRY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TRACY BECKER, OF VIRGINIA
STEVEN TERRY BENFELL, OF VIRGINIA
ROBERT C. BLACKSTONE, OF MARYLAND
JEREMY M. BLUM, OF FLORIDA
MELANIE LYNETTE BONNER, OF MISSISSIPPI
SARAH E. BOSWELL, OF VIRGINIA
BRUCE M. BOURBEAU, OF VIRGINIA
CARRIE BRAMAN, OF VIRGINIA
JOSEPH C. BRISTOL, OF WASHINGTON
HEATHER WINN BROMAN, OF VIRGINIA
BRUCE T. BROOKS, OF VIRGINIA
SUSAN A. BROWN, OF VIRGINIA
PETER EGILL EGGERZ BROWNFELD, OF VIRGINIA
STEPHEN C. BURGIN, OF VIRGINIA
EDWARD C. BURLESON, OF TEXAS
LEWIS W. BURNS III, OF NORTH CAROLINA
GINA M. CABRERA-FARRAJ, OF VIRGINIA
PAULINA CARRASCO, OF VIRGINIA
CHRISTINA JEANNE CAVALLO, OF VIRGINIA
TODD M. CISZ, OF VIRGINIA
LAWRENCE HUSTON CLIFTON, OF VIRGINIA
TALYON J. COLEMAN, OF MINNESOTA
STACIE LEIGH CONSTANTINE, OF VIRGINIA
SARAH B. CROCKETT, OF VIRGINIA
KELIA EILEEN CUMMINS, OF NEW YORK
RICHARD E. DALEY, OF FLORIDA
ANNE BARBER DAVIS, OF VIRGINIA
ANN MARIE DEAL, OF MASSACHUSETTS
NATHAN L. DIETRICH, OF VIRGINIA
STEVEN J. DUBE, OF ILLINOIS
KONSTANTIN DUBROVSKY, OF VIRGINIA
QUINTON L. DUFFY, OF COLORADO
J. COE ECONOMOU, OF NEW YORK
CHARLES WILLIAM ELLIOT III, OF VIRGINIA
MARY M. ENNIS, OF VIRGINIA
AMANDA M. EVANS, OF MARYLAND
HEATHER CARLIN FABRIKANT, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILLIP FANTOZZI, OF VIRGINIA
KATHRYNN RAE FESTA, OF VIRGINIA
HENRY DOUGLAS FLACH, OF VIRGINIA
COLLIN J. FLYNN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MATTHEW D. FRANKE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAVID CHARLES GAMBLA, OF VIRGINIA
ANDREW M. GHOBRIEL, OF VIRGINIA
ACQUANIA V. GIBBS, OF MARYLAND
RENEE P. GOFF, OF VIRGINIA
ANN DELONG GREENBERG, OF VIRGINIA
LONI MARIA GREENBERG, OF MARYLAND
MICHAEL THOMAS HACKETT, OF CONNECTICUT
MAXWELL J. HAMILTON, OF LOUISIANA
J. MICHAEL HARVEY, OF WASHINGTON
CHARLES E. HAVENER, OF MARYLAND
ROBERT B. HAWKINS III, OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREW WILLIAM HAY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT ARMSTRONG HELWIG III, OF VIRGINIA
JOHN BRIAN HERICKHOFF, OF VIRGINIA
MICHAEL J. HESSLER, OF VIRGINIA
MICHEL C. HO, OF VIRGINIA
COURTNEY ANNE HOMAN-JONES, OF MARYLAND
HEATHER S. HONAKER, OF VIRGINIA
DAVID MAURICE JONES, OF ILLINOIS
KRISTIN MICHELLE HOOPER, OF VIRGINIA
PHILLIP ANDREW HOOPER, OF VIRGINIA
DAVID C. HORENGIC, OF VIRGINIA
CHARLES C. HULL, OF MARYLAND
OMAR KAMAL JABBOUR, OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDER J. JARZ, OF VIRGINIA
BRENDAN H. JOHNSON, OF VIRGINIA
JEFFREY M. JORDAN, OF MARYLAND
KEITH P. JORDAN, OF VIRGINIA
NICKOLAS A. JORJANI, OF VIRGINIA
ROBERT WARREN KACHUR, OF VIRGINIA
STEPAN KARAKESISOGLU, OF MARYLAND
KATHERINE MICHELLE KELLEY, OF MARYLAND
MICHAEL JAMES KELLY, OF MARYLAND
SUSAN KOPP KEYACK, OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONG-SUNG KIM, OF MARYLAND
THANH C. KIM, OF TEXAS
CARINA DEA KLEIN, OF NEW YORK
GEORGE E. KRAMER, OF VIRGINIA
KRIS S. KUMAR, OF VIRGINIA
JONATHAN P. LALLEY, OF VIRGINIA
SCOTT D. LANDSMAN, OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH AARON LARSON, OF VIRGINIA
ELLISON S. LASKOWSKI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JEFFREY DEAN LASSETER, OF VIRGINIA
DARLENE M. LIAO, OF VIRGINIA
LEAH CHRISTINE LIOTT, OF MARYLAND
KENDRICK M. LIU, OF CALIFORNIA
LIANA M. LUM, OF MARYLAND
AYO W. LYNN, OF VIRGINIA
PATRICK S. LYON, OF MARYLAND
ERIN NICHOLE MARKLEY, OF MISSOURI
NICHOLAS FRANCIS VAZQUEZ MATHEW, OF VIRGINIA
KEITH A. MCCOY, OF VIRGINIA
REID B. MCCOY, OF TEXAS
N. DEAN MESERVY, OF MARYLAND
FAITH MCCARTHY MEYERS, OF VIRGINIA
CHRISTOPHER C. MILLER, OF VIRGINIA
MARK R. MINEO, OF FLORIDA
MARLA ANNE MONTEVALDO, OF VIRGINIA
WILLIAM L. MORRIS III, OF VIRGINIA
GILBERT GEORGE MORTON, OF NEW YORK
KALPANA MURTHY, OF WASHINGTON
JASON ZIMPRICH NADON-RZASA, OF VIRGINIA
TODD R. NEIMAN, OF ILLINOIS
KEVIN D. NELSON, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER R. NEWMAN, OF VIRGINIA
RUTH NEWMAN, OF COLORADO
RICHARD F. NICHOLES, OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTE SULLIVAN NUANES, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIAN O'BEIRNE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NICOLE L. O'BRIEN, OF VIRGINIA
KERRI ANN OLSEN, OF VIRGINIA
MATTHEW RYAN PACKER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TAMMY B. PALTCHIKOV, OF ALABAMA
ELEANOR B. PEARSON, OF VIRGINIA
CHARLES STEPHEN PENNYPACKER, OF VIRGINIA
LAUREN E. PETERS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHANE M. PETERSEN, OF VIRGINIA
KRISTA PICA, OF VIRGINIA
JEREMY B. PINNER, OF VIRGINIA
ESTHER A. PIZARRO, OF VIRGINIA
JAMES PLASMAN, OF ILLINOIS

[[Page 5988]]

LOUIS S. POLLARD, OF VIRGINIA
PAMELA ROSS DIEFENDERFER PONTIUS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CARTER JAMES POTTS, OF VIRGINIA
CYNTHIA ZUNIGA PRASZCZALEK, OF MARYLAND
CLAIRE V. QUIRKE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PRASHANTH RAJAN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NAYEONG L. RANDORF, OF VIRGINIA
GREGORY N. RANKIN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JAMES E. REESE, OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMIE ROANE, OF VIRGINIA
ROSELLEN ALBANO ROBERT, OF VIRGINIA
MICHAEL A. ROBERTS, OF VIRGINIA
OLGA B. ROMANOVA, OF NEW YORK
IVAN F. RUIZ, OF VIRGINIA
ROBERT RUSCHENBERG, OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXANDER THEODORE RYAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIGITTA J. SAJCIC, OF VIRGINIA
TANYA YUKI SALSETH, OF CALIFORNIA
ROCCO C. SANTORO, OF MARYLAND
BRANDE HANNAH SASSMAN, OF VIRGINIA
CRAIG G. SCHMAUS, OF VIRGINIA
ANDREW HUBBARD SCHUT, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW C. SCHWARTZ, OF MARYLAND
ANDREW CRAWFORD SCHWARTZ, OF VIRGINIA
JOE L. SEPULVEDA, OF VIRGINIA
MELISSA K. SHOEMAKER, OF VIRGINIA
ASHLI C. SIMPSON, OF TEXAS
EILEEN SIMPSON, OF VIRGINIA
JONATHAN M. SMALLRIDGE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOLAN G. SMASH, OF MARYLAND
GREGORY MICHAEL SMITH, OF VIRGINIA
JASON A. SMITH, OF VIRGINIA
ROBERT THOMAS SMITH, OF VIRGINIA
STEPHANIE P. SMITH, OF VIRGINIA
RAVINDRA MOHAN SRIVASTAVA, OF COLORADO
JOHN W. STABLES, OF TEXAS
NATASHA N. STITH, OF VIRGINIA
ROBERT J. STOLZ, OF VIRGINIA
LIAM L. SULLIVAN, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
MATTHEW JOSEPH SULLIVAN, OF VIRGINIA
MEREDITH JILL SUMPTER, OF VIRGINIA
ELIZABETH TANG SWEET, OF NEW JERSEY
TRISHA ANN TAINO, OF VIRGINIA
LISA Y. TAM, OF VIRGINIA
CONSTANTINO THEOHARATOS, OF ARIZONA
ERIC J. THEUS, OF VIRGINIA
BOBBI C. THOMAS-TAGAI, OF TEXAS
PATTY ANN TRUGLIO, OF VIRGINIA
DAVID COLIN TURNBULL, OF NEW YORK
ANDREW UTZ, OF VIRGINIA
PETER P. VELASCO, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JILLIAN MARIE WALKER, OF VIRGINIA
ERIKA A. H. WANAMAKER, OF VIRGINIA
JUSTIN T. WARNICK, OF VIRGINIA
SHAWNTAE WHITE, OF OHIO
MICHELLE A. WHITEMAN, OF MARYLAND
CURT WHITTAKER, OF OREGON
ARIC C. WILLIAMS, OF VIRGINIA
GEORGE THOMAS WOOD IV, OF VIRGINIA
JEFFREY TODD WORKMAN, OF MARYLAND
JARED M. YANCEY, OF VIRGINIA
MARA YAVERBAUM, OF VIRGINIA
MICHAEL B. YORKE, OF VIRGINIA
KIRA L. ZAPORSKI, OF WISCONSIN

SECRETARIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA:
DENISE G. MANNING, OF VIRGINIA
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN
SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PROMOTION IN THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASSES INDICATED:
CAREER MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER COUNSELOR, EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 6, 2008:
ROBERT A. ECKERT, OF FLORIDA
KIMBERLY K. OTTWELL, OF ARIZONA

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

TO BE LIEUTENANT GENERAL

MAJ. GEN. DANA T. ATKINS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. MARK D. SHACKELFORD

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 lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. FRANK G. HELMICK

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 lieutenant general

BRIG. GEN. JOHN F. MULHOLLAND, JR.

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.
SECTION 624:

To be major

KENNETH D. SMITH

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.
SECTION 624:

To be lieutenant colonel

JOHN M. HOPPMANN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:

To be lieutenant colonel

AMY M. BAJUS
SHANE E. BARTEE
JOSEPH B. BERGER III
LOUIS A. BIRDSONG
PAULETTE V. BURTON
ERIK L. CHRISTIANSEN
DAVID T. CLUXTON
STEVEN P. CULLEN
GAIL A. CURLEY
KATHRYN A. DONNELLY
GREGG A. ENGLER
KWASI L. HAWKS
MICHAEL K. HERRING
JONATHAN HOWARD
JOHN T. HYATT
IAN R. IVERSON
MELVIN C. JENKS
CARL A. JOHNSON
NICHOLAS F. LANCASTER
JEFFERY D. LIPPERT
DONALD G. LOBEDA, JR.
JOSEPH M. MASTERSON
DAVID E. MENDELSON
MATTHEW M. MILLER
PHILIP C. MITCHELL
SUSAN E. MITCHELL
JOHN C. MOORE
MICHAEL E. MUELLER
CHARLES C. POCHE
LUIS O. RODRIGUEZ
JOHN T. ROTHWELL
MICHELLE L. RYAN
KENNETH W. SHAHAN
WILLIAM D. SMOOT III
SUSAN B. SUTHERLAND
KURT A. TAKUSHI
JAMES L. VARLEY
ROBERT P. VASQUEZ

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C. SECTION 624:

To be lieutenant colonel

DAVID G. MCCULLOH
ROBERT E. SAWYER
PAUL W. VOSS

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

ADAM J. COGHAN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

JOHN E. PASCH III
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

RICHARD C. BOEHM
MICHAEL D. CONGER
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

JAMES R. DUNWORTH
BRUCE A. HORTON
ROBERT K. LANSDEN
FRANCIS J. MCCABE II
NEIL R. REILLY
CHARLES A. ROZHON, JR.
MICHAEL A. SANO

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

WILLIAM K. DAVIS
ROBERT T. DURAND
THOMAS R. GRESBACK
JON C. LUNDBERG
TERRANCE L. SHANNON
KATHLEEN R. WRIGHT

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

KATHLEEN GROMILOVITZ
JOHN F. LANDRY
JAMES M. MANCHER

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

THOMAS E. FOLLO
JOHN M. PIETKIEWICZ
SARAH M. STANDARD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

DAVID J. HARACH
WILLIAM T. LITTLE
MARK D. MAXWELL
PATRICK R. MULCAHY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

DONALD R. BURNS
MICHAEL D. COOK
RANDALL J. GEIS
DEAN C. HALVORSON
WILLIAM R. LARAY
WILLIAM D. MICHAEL

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

ROBERT J. BARTON II
MICHAEL P. CARTER
STEPHEN M. DEBRUYNKOPS
DOUGLAS S. FARNCOMB
CHARLES A. GUNZEL
THOMAS L. MORGAN
ANTHONY NICKENS
LYNN J. PETERSEN
ROBERT A. UHLIG
CHRISTOPHER M. WAALER

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

DREW G. FLAVELL
ERIC W. JOHNSON
SCOTT A. LANGLEY
TONYA Y. W. PRINGLE
TODD A. ROSE
JOSEPH P. WAITE
PAUL F. WECKMAN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

TERI J. BARBER
MARY K. CAFFREY
SHARON S. DOXEY
VALERIE L. EICHENLAUB
STEPHEN D. KIBBEY
PATRICIA A. LEOPARD
ROBERTA E. SYBA
LORI A. YOST

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

ERIC B. ANDERSON
MARLIN C. ANTHONY
WILLIAM L. BACH
JAY S. BOWMAN
SYBIL V. BRADLEY
MICHAEL L. ELLIOTT
CARLOS E. FLANAGAN
DONALD M. GORDNIER
TED C. GRAHAM
KEVIN O. HENDRICKS
ANDREW E. HOPKINS
RANDOLPH B. JOHNSON
JON C. KREITZ
WILLIAM J. LEAR, JR.
PAUL G. MATTINGLY II

[[Page 5989]]

CHRISTOPHER S. MOORE
SAMUEL L. TATE
STEVEN D. VINCENT
GEORGE N. WHITBRED IV

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

CLAYTON R. ALLEN
AYAD N. ALSAIGH
DOUGLAS J. ANDERSON
SAMUEL W. ASBURY
KELLY J. BALTZ
JOHN H. BARNET, JR.
MICHAEL D. BELL
MATTHEW C. BINSFIELD
DANIEL J. BURQUE
ANDREW P. CAMPBELL
PAMELA K. L. CAREL
WESLEY J. CARPENTER
DOUGLAS R. CARROLL
STEPHAN J. CASSIDY
GREGG T. CLARK
MICHAEL W. CLARK
RICHARD G. COLBURN
MARTIN R. COSTA
GEORGE M. COX
RONALD A. CRADDOCK
JOHN W. CRAIG
OWEN J. CURLEY
RODNEY P. DEWALT
DAVID P. DIPESA
MATTHEW S. DOYLE
CRAIG R. DUGAN
MICHAEL R. DUNNE
MICHAEL S. EKLUND
DAVID C. ENGLEHART
ROBERT J. FINKELSTON
JEFFREY C. FLUMIGNAN
ADRIANANTHONY GARCIA
LEONARD A. GESHAN, JR.
SHANE A. GRAY
GERALD E. GREEN, JR.
MICHAEL L. HARRIS
DAVID W. HEGLAR
JOSEPH J. HORVATH
CHRISTOPHER K. HYDER
GUY D. V. JACKSON
WILLIAM S. JOHNSON
DANIEL T. KELLY
GEORGE A. KENYON, JR.
MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK
JAMES P. KITZMILLER
RUDOLPH KLICEK, JR.
LEIGH L. KOJIRO
JOSEPH G. LAMACK II
JOSEPH C. LAULETTA, JR.
STEVEN E. LEAHY
PAUL D. LEBRASSEUR
CLAUDE P. R. LIM
JAMES S. LITTLE
ALEXANDER R. LOVETT
MARK D. LOWMAN
WILLIAM F. LUSSIER
SCOT T. LYNN
MICHAEL A. MALOWNEY
KEVIN L. MARLOWE
DONATO B. MASAOY III
STEPHEN MASI
ALISON S. MCCRARY
TODD R. MCKINLEY
ANTHONY MCKINNEY
EDWARD MEANY
JAMES J. MEHAIL
JOHN E. MENDEL
DOMINIC J. MEOLI
KEVIN P. MONAGLE
WALLACE F. MOORE
KEITH E. MORAN
ARIEL C. NAGALES
MICHAEL S. NEWMAN
DAVID P. ODEA, JR.
MATTHEW P. OKEEFE
DONALD S. PAGEL, JR.
DAVID J. POPOVICH
GREGORY J. RALSTIN
RANDALL K. REID
PAUL D. REINHART
MARK J. RETZLOFF
ALLAN D. RISLEY
JEFFREY M. ROGALINER
DANIEL R. ROMAN
MARCO F. ROMANI
BRIAN S. RUSSELL
DAVID M. SALUTO
ANTHONY J. SANNICOLAS
STEVEN A. SCHELLBERG
DAN S. SCHINDLER
KENNETH A. SCHROEDER
ROBERT E. SECHRIEST
GERALD A. SHERMAN
KRISTI L. SIDEBOTTOM
THOMAS J. SKUBIC
ANDE A. SMITH
LANCE A. SNIDER
CRAIG S. SOER
DAVID V. SPEARS
MICHAEL A. STEWART
VINCENT L. TISEO
JESS H. UMPHENOUR
WARREN K. VANEMAN
FRANK T. WALLACE
DAVID H. WEEKS
CURTIS A. WOLD
ERIC F. ZANIN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be captain

TAMMY M. BAKER
KATHLEEN BOEHMER
DAVID H. BULFORD
ROBIN K. CLEMENTS
CHARLES M. CONWAY III
TIMOTHY W. CROY
RALPH L. DEFALCO
DAVID J. DORAN
GEORGE C. DRISCOLL
MARY S. ELLIS
BRUCE D. GARROTT
GREGORY K. HAYES
WILLIAM R. HUNT
MARK A. KENNEY
LINDA K. KNIGHT
JOHN H. LAGORIO, JR.
DREW F. LIEB
EVAN C. LOVE
SAMUEL J. MANDELL
JOHN A. MANNARINO
KATHRYN L. MAURER
BRIAN C. POEHLER
ROBERT D. POWELL
CLYDE E. ROYSTON
ERIC S. SCHNEIDER
LUCY A. SIMONIAN
JOHN D. TODD
SUSAN D. TOTH
SCOTT A. WOODWORTH
LEONARD A. ZIMMERMANN I

THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 531:

To be lieutenant commander

SAMUEL G. ESPIRITU
MILLER J. KERR
PAUL G. SCANLAN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 5721:

To be lieutenant commander

TERRY L. BUCKMAN
ROBERT D. CARTER, JR.
CHRISTOPHER C. COFFEY
KENNY J. COMEAUX
GEORGE R. EBARB
CHAD A. FELLA
WILLIAM D. FRANCIS
JOHN T. GREEN
JELANI K. HALE
JEFFREY P. HARVEY
ROBERT A. HEELY, JR.
TIMOTHY KNAPP
BRIAN J. LADIEU
DAVID C. LEIKER
TERRY P. MCNAMARA
ERIC A. NICHOLSON
JASON P. PATTERSON
DAVID A. PFAEFFLIN
ANGEL F. RODRIGUEZ
KENNETH M. ROMAN
ANTHONY M. ROMERO
CHAD J. ROUM
JOHN W. RYAN
KENNETH A. SABOL
KENNETH D. SAUNDERS
TIMOTHY J. SHIVOK
CHAD B. STEINBRECHER
GREGORY L. TAYLOR
RITCHIE L. TAYLOR
FRANCIS J. WALTER III
THOMAS M. WILLIAMS

____________________

WITHDRAWAL

Executive Message transmitted by the President to the Senate on April
15, 2008 withdrawing from further Senate consideration the following
nomination:

STEPHEN JOSEPH MURPHY III, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, VICE SUSAN BIEKE
NEILSON, DECEASED, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE SENATE ON MARCH 19,
2007.

[[Page 5990]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The House met at 10:30 a.m.

____________________

MORNING-HOUR DEBATE

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 4, 2007,
the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the
majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.

____________________

THE PELOSI PREMIUM

The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm here to talk about the Pelosi Premium. Once a nightmare scenario,
$4 gasoline may soon become a harsh reality on Speaker Pelosi's watch.
Today, drivers are paying a dollar more per gallon at the pump than
when the Speaker took office. This Pelosi Premium is hitting working
families hard at a time when they are confronting soaring costs, a
slowing economy and a housing crunch. Middle-class families and their
increasingly tight budgets need relief, not more broken promises. We're
operating under a set of broken promises.
Speaker Pelosi promised the American people a commonsense plan to
lower gasoline prices, but House Democrats have not only failed to
offer any meaningful solutions, they've put forward policies that will
have precisely the opposite effect. We cannot tax middle-class
families' and truckers' tanks from empty to full.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 4-18-2006: The Democrats have a plan to
lower gas prices.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 4-24-2006: Democrats have a commonsense plan
to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.
August 4, 2007, Democrats have voted those four times to raise taxes
in the 110th Congress: January 18, August 4, December 6, 2007, February
27, 2008. The Pelosi Premium continues.
Since Democrats took control of Congress, gasoline prices have
skyrocketed by more than $1 per gallon forcing worker families to pay a
Pelosi Premium at the pump. With reports indicating gasoline prices are
beginning to hit $4 per gallon, the Pelosi Premium couldn't come at a
worse time for middle-class families already being squeezed by the
soaring costs of living.
The price we pay for both gasoline and oil is fundamentally an issue
of supply and demand, but while U.S. oil consumption has largely
remained the same over the past few years, world oil consumption has
spiraled to 84 million barrels a day, up nearly 25 percent from 68
million barrels a decade ago. This results in a tremendous increase in
prices.
As you are fully aware, gas prices have increased by $1.05 per gallon
since Nancy Pelosi took control of Congress on January 4, 2007. This
represents an increase of nearly 45 percent.
At the same time that world oil consumption has skyrocketed, access
to world energy supplies has struggled to keep pace. Nowhere has this
trend been worse than in the United States which stands today as the
only industrialized Nation in the world that refuses to tap 85 percent
of our available deep sea energy resources.
While the U.S. has held its consumption steady, more needs to be done
to build a bridge from where we are today to the renewable and
alternative energy future in which we all want to live. In fact, under
the Democrats in Congress, we've gone from 50 percent of our oil
imports coming from OPEC to 57 percent coming from OPEC in 1 year.
But before we achieve those things in the future, we'll have to
figure out a way to live, work, and prosper in the present. For too
many Democrats, growing our economy today, tomorrow, and next month
isn't much of a priority. In fact, the majority has voted four separate
times to raise energy taxes in the 110th Congress. But even if we had
access to all of the oil in the world, we would need places to turn
that oil into gasoline. Regrettably, the U.S. hasn't built a new
refinery in 32 years and, in fact, has successfully shut down several
at that time. The results are stunning. Today, the U.S. has only 149
operable oil refineries compared with 321 in 1981. That means roughly
double the demand now must be handled with half of the number of
refineries.
Let's remember this fall the broken promises made in 2006 and the
Pelosi Premium which is costing us so much money.

____________________

THE PELOSI PREMIUM

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Israel). The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to read to you, Mr.
Speaker, a memo from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
that was sent out in 2006. This was sent out to the Democratic
candidates, and it was obtained by the Chicago Tribune.
``Demonstrate your dedication for fighting for middle-class families
by clearly explaining how you will work to keep down the price of gas
if elected to Congress. Hold an event at a gas station or other logical
locations where you will call for real commitment to bringing down gas
prices and pledge that, as a Member of Congress, you will fight for
families in your district, not the oil and gas executives for which
this Republican Congress has fought so hard.''
Now those are some pretty interesting comments coming from the DCCC.
On May 10, 2006, Baron Hill said this: ``In Congress, I will support
measures that will strengthen our economy and lower gas prices instead
of rewarding big oil companies and special interest lobbies.''
Mr. Speaker, once Mr. Hill got elected to Congress and voted to raise
taxes on the American energy producers, he was somehow shocked when
higher taxes resulted in higher gas prices.
March 12, 2007, in a press release Mr. Hill said, ``Gasoline prices
have increased significantly over the past few weeks, with little
explanation for higher prices.'' The explanation for higher prices is
because of higher taxes.
Mr. Joe Donnelly in a July 3, 2006, interview: ``I will be an
independent voice who will represent the people of the second district.
Not the wealthy oil and pharmaceutical companies that have bought our
Congress and are running our country. We need leaders who will stand up
for good jobs, a better prescription drug plan for our seniors, and a
real energy plan that will work to drive down skyrocketing gas
prices.''
Mr. Donnelly, I'm sure your constituents and the people of this
country are waiting for that energy to go forth in some results.
April 26, 2006, press release by Mr. Ed Markey: ``Congress once again
has an opportunity to help the American people through this financial
pinch.'' Keep in mind, the Republicans were in charge and the Democrats
were trying to win votes, Mr. Speaker.
``But by ignoring legislation like the Windfall Profits and Consumer
Assistance Act, Congress has shown, once

[[Page 5991]]

again, that it would rather put the needs of the special interests
ahead of the needs of the American people. There is a cost to this kind
of corruption in Washington, and it's at $75 a barrel and climbing.''
Mr. Markey, the price today is $113 a barrel, and you have not
reintroduced your Windfall Profits and Consumer Assistance Act to
Congress.
But what have we done? I tell you what we have done. The chairman of
Energy and Commerce has got a solution: raise gasoline tax by 50 cents
a gallon. I don't think that's what the American people had in mind.
July 26, 2006, in a town hall meeting, Jim Clyburn, who is now the
majority whip, says this: ``Thomas from Orangeburg asks: What are you
doing about gas prices? They're ridiculously high.'' Mr. Clyburn
answered, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.
We have outlined our plan in a proposal called Energizing America. I
join my fellow Democrats in believing that drilling for more oil is not
a long-term solution to our Nation's energy crisis.''
What is it? Buying bicycles? The Pelosi plan? Thirty bicycles for
$30,000? Raising taxes? Fifty cents a gallon by the chairman of Energy
and Commerce proposal? Five cents a gallon by the chairman of
Transportation? A dollar a barrel of oil from the chairman of
Transportation? Those are some great ideas.
April 27, 2006, when gas was $2.91 a gallon, and I will remind you
that it's $3.44 today, a letter to Speaker Hastert signed by 88
Democratic Members of Congress, they said this: ``Just this week, the
price for oil increased to over $70 a barrel.'' Don't we yearn for
those days of $70 a barrel when it's $113 today?
We believe Congress has an obligation to determine the underlying
causes behind the skyrocketing prices. Congress has an obligation to
take action on behalf of the consumer. Where is the action?
All bark, no bite.

____________________

GOP: THE GRAND OIL PARTY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the Grand Oil Party is at it again. $500 billion
in profits to the oil industry since George Bush, the oil man, and Dick
Cheney, the oil man, took office. Remember what they told us? They
could deal with the industry. They'd talk the prices down. They could
deal with OPEC. They'd talk the prices down. OPEC is violating
international law. The President won't file a complaint in the World
Trade Organization for their illegal constraint of production which is
driving up the price. The President refuses to take any action against
his friends in the OPEC consortium or cartel.
Now the big oil companies, $40 billion in profits for one,
ExxonMobil, last year, their generous campaign contributors, the GOP,
Grand Oil Party, is doing very well. But now they're crying crocodile
tears here on the floor and saying they really care about consumers,
after the Bush-Cheney energy bill, which gave subsidies to ExxonMobil
who made $40 billion last year after the Republicans refused last year
to strip those subsidies from the oil companies? They complain about
the high price to consumers. They're born-again consumer advocates.
That's great.
I've been a consumer advocate for a long time. I have consistently
supported a windfall profits tax. I've also consistently said we've got
to go after the OPEC cartel and file the complaints. And we need new
technologies, and we need new fuels, and we need conservation. None of
those things were in the Bush-Cheney energy bills written behind closed
doors by big oil and the GOP, the Grand Oil Party.
But now, their presumptive political nominee, Mr. McCain, has come up
with a great idea, let's suspend the gas tax. Now, let's see. In 1993,
the gas tax was 18.3 cents a gallon, and gas was $1.05 a gallon. Today,
in my district, gas is $3.50 a gallon, and guess what? The Federal gas
tax is still 18.3 cents a gallon. That money is a tax. It's a tax going
to big oil and OPEC and to hedge fund speculators who are driving up
the price of oil. That's the tax the American consumers are paying.
They won't take on OPEC, and they sure as heck aren't going to take on
their friends in big oil.
We're willing to do that. And suspending the gas tax, now I would ask
the presumptive Republican nominee, Mr. McCain, if we suspend the gas
tax, how many highway projects and bridge projects are you going to
cancel? How many thousand people are you going to put out of work when
you already have a deficit in the trust fund? If you want to give
relief to the American consumers, target the real culprits. It is not
the gas tax that's been flat for the last 15 years; it's big oil and
it's the OPEC companies and the hedge fund speculators on Wall Street.
Let's go after them.

____________________

HOPE AND CHANGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. David Davis) for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to
tell you something about my district. I go home every single weekend
because I take the word ``representative'' very seriously. I go home
and speak with people living and working in my district because they
are the ones who sent me to Washington to express their ideas and their
concerns. Two common themes come up from the people in northeast
Tennessee: hope and change. We hear a lot about those words today.
They hope that sometime in the future they won't have to spend over
$50 to fill up their pick-up truck. They want change, a change that
will take them from dependence on foreign oil to clean, safe, and
available American energy. Energy is the foundation and lifeblood of
the American economy creating the conditions to help us support good-
paying jobs here in the United States and allow our industrial base to
compete with the rest of the world.
We all know that the middle-class families are feeling significant
pain at the pump. But the American family isn't the only place where
the strain of spiking fuel prices can be felt. According to recent news
reports, local schools, law enforcement agencies, and other community
services are paying the price for a record high-fuel cost.
Unfortunately, Democrats in the House, who are now in charge, have been
consistent in offering so-called energy legislation that weakens our
ability to compete with emerging titans such as China, India, and
Russia.
In the United States today, we are 63 percent dependent on foreign
sources of energy. 63 percent. And that percentage is growing every
year. Gasoline prices have increased more than $1 per gallon since the
majority party, under Speaker Pelosi, took control of the House last
year, increasing from a nationwide average of $2.33 per gallon on the
first day of the 110th Congress to now $3.34 a gallon. When Speaker
Pelosi took office and had a plan to fix the energy cost, oil was
selling for $56 a barrel. Now, it's selling for $113 a barrel. People
are looking for hope and change.
Figures from the Energy Information Administration indicate the U.S.
reliance on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly
known as OPEC, grew from 50.9 percent of our total crude imports in
2006 to 57.6 percent in 2007. Not only has the majority party failed to
end our reliance on Middle Eastern oil for our essential energy needs,
they've actually helped grow our dependence to historic and dangerous
levels.
We need to make sure that we're not dependent on our energy needs
from people that hate us and hate our freedoms all because of their
refusal to allow responsible energy production here at home. We cannot
tax and regulate our way out of an energy crisis. The American people
want an energy policy that's comprehensive and addresses our needs for
wind, water, solar, safe nuclear, clean coal technology and, most
importantly, the use of American oil.

[[Page 5992]]

The American middle class deserves better. They deserve an energy
policy that is dependent on American energy, not foreign energy.

____________________

CRISIS IN LEADERSHIP IN WASHINGTON AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today is April 15th. It's a momentous day for Americans
as all Americans know it's Tax Day. And it's a day that Americans tend
to focus a little more attention on the amount of money that they send
to Washington. And it's a lot of money. It's a lot of money, Mr.
Speaker.
And most folks that I talk to say that would be okay, a lot of them
have said that would be okay if they were getting good things for their
money, if they were seeing progress happen here in Washington. But
that's just not the case.
I, like most of my colleagues, go home every weekend. I went home
last weekend, and what I hear from my constituents is what is
happening? Where is the leadership in Washington? Mr. Speaker, I
believe there is a crisis in leadership in Washington and here in the
House of Representatives.
Whether it is supporting our troops, the leadership here apparently
is determined that they are going to use our military troops as pack
mules to carry their special projects across the finish line. Mr.
Speaker, that's leadership lacking.
Whether it's protecting our Nation in the area of intelligence, this
leadership believes that our intelligence community doesn't need to
have the tools necessary to tell what the bad guys are going to do
before they do it. Mr. Speaker, that's leadership lacking.
You have heard a lot about gas prices this morning. Sixteen months
ago when this leadership took charge, a barrel of gasoline cost about
$52, $53 a barrel. Today, it is about $112, $113 a barrel. Mr. Speaker,
that's leadership lacking.
What's changed in Washington since that time? New leadership here in
the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, that's not the kind of
change that America voted for.
We need to work together in the area of energy. We need to make
certain that we, as Americans, conserve more. We need to make certain
that we utilize American resources for Americans. There's incredible
resources in our land. We could utilize those resources in
environmentally sensitive and technologically sound ways to make
certain that we decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to make certain that we accelerate
the use of alternative fuel, not picking winners and losers like this
leadership in this majority wants to do, pick ethanol and raise the gas
prices significantly by that, raise food prices around the world
because of the action of this leadership. Mr. Speaker, that's
leadership lacking.
Where else is leadership lacking here in the House? Well, Mr.
Speaker, it is in helping our friends around the world. We have a
former President meeting with Hamas terrorists. Where is the outcry
from this leadership saying that that's not the correct thing to do for
a former leader of our Nation?
In the area of fair trade, free trade, last week this leadership
decided they were going to take one of our friends, Colombia and South
America, who have worked with us time and time again, one of the
glimmering hopes for democracy in South America, and what does this
leadership do? Kick them in the teeth.
It is not just me saying that. Headlines all across the Nation last
week: Financial Times, ``A setback on trade in Washington;'' Knoxville
News Sentinel, ``House Democrats holding free trade hostage;'' Corpus
Christi Caller Times, ``Congress should pass Colombia trade deal;''
Charleston Post Courier, ``Politics trump free trade;'' Orange County
Register, ``Trading on ignorance;'' the Plain Dealer, ``Sidetracking
American trade deal hurts U.S. businesses and workers;'' the Chicago
Tribune, ``Caving on Colombia;'' Los Angeles Times, ``Pelosi plays
politics;'' The Oklahoman, ``Pelosi's ploy: Colombia Deal Succumbs to
Politics;'' New York Times, ``Time for the Colombian Free Trade Pact;''
the Denver Post, ``Historical failure on Colombia trade pact;'' San
Francisco Chronicle, ``Trade pandering;'' New York Post, ``Pelosi's
Putrid Sellout;'' Seattle Times, ``The Washington 6: tampering with
trade;'' the Boston Herald, ``The Pelosi Doctrine: Duck;'' Las Vegas
Review Journal, ``Trade Talks;'' National Review, ``Free Choice;'' St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, ``The Politics of Trade;'' Washington Post, ``Drop
Dead, Colombia;'' and the Wall Street Journal, ``Pelosi's Bad Faith.''
Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis of leadership here in Washington, here
in this House of Representatives. The American people are paying
attention. The American people want positive change. The American
people want us to work together. I call on the Speaker of this House to
bring forward the free trade deal with Colombia, to work together on
gas prices, to make certain that we pass a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act that allows our intelligence communities to act
positively.
Mr. Speaker, I call on our leadership to be responsible.

____________________

ETHANOL HAS NOT SAVED US YET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been said by folks that
Washington, DC., is the only place in America that is surrounded by
reality because people here, especially in Congress, those people say,
are in a Disney World atmosphere and don't know how the world really
is.
Probably the best example is what has taken place throughout our
country in the area of gasoline prices. They are going up every day.
Every day we come back to Congress, gasoline prices continue to rise.
And there's a constant problem here. Retail operators who run those
mom-and-pop independent gasoline stations are saying they're not even
making a profit off of gasoline. They hope maybe they can make one cent
a gallon. The way they make profit is selling lottery tickets and
donuts, and the country continues to see higher and higher gasoline
prices.
It's a tremendous problem that we have to deal with. We have to come
out of this Disney World atmosphere and solve the problem. Some say
what is going to save us all is ethanol. Let's take all of the farmland
in America, let's till it up, let's grow some corn, and let's make some
of that unproven, unpredictable ethanol to burn in our vehicles.
Of course, what we have done as a Nation by encouraging and
subsidizing the special interest group of ethanol, we've raised the
corn prices worldwide. In fact, they have tripled in the last 2 years.
And because corn prices are going up, wheat prices are going up. And in
the last 17 years, food prices in the world are higher than they ever
have been, all because the United States has seen this vision that
ethanol is going to save us all.
Several years ago, those who talked about ethanol that weren't for
the concept of ethanol said ethanol is not going to be profitable
unless gasoline gets to $4 a gallon. Four years ago, people in this
House said, oh, that's never going to happen. The problem with ethanol
is it takes a gallon and a third of fuel, diesel, to produce a gallon
of ethanol. And only when gasoline gets to be $4 a gallon will ethanol
be profitable for this country.
In fact, it's driving up pollution. Science Magazine has stated,
``After taking into account worldwide land-use changes, corn-based
ethanol will increase greenhouse gases 93 percent compared to gasoline
over a 30-year period.''
In other words, the House was trying to be environmentally correct.
We want to make sure we don't have pollution. Nobody wants pollution.
Nobody wants greenhouse gases; but unproven, subsidized ethanol is
going to raise

[[Page 5993]]

worldwide greenhouse gases all because we're tilling up our farmland.
I have here a map of the United States. Now we're also finding out
where the Mississippi River dumps into the Gulf of Mexico, there is a
dead zone, and there is a dead zone there for various reasons. But
because we're plowing up all in the Midwest this farmland and making
corn, which takes a lot of fertilizer, that fertilizer is going down
the Mississippi River, and the dead zone at the mouth of the
Mississippi River is getting bigger. ``Dead zone'' means exactly what
it says: Nothing grows there and fish don't live there, all because of
this concept of ethanol.
So what are we doing about it? Well, first thing Congress did, we're
going to punish those oil companies, those American oil companies, and
we are going to tax them, raise the taxes on these oil companies, and
that's what Congress did. Now it's a simple economic fact. You tax
something, you get less of it. What does that mean? That means if you
tax something, you're going to get less production. You're going to get
less production of crude oil.
Now, we don't drill off our own shores. We're the only Nation in the
world that doesn't take care of ourselves with the natural resources
that we have been given. The only place we drill offshore, Mr. Speaker,
is right here in this blue zone off the State of Texas where I'm from,
off the State of Louisiana and parts of Mississippi and Alabama. But
you see in all of these areas that are red on this map, there is crude
oil out there in the ocean, but we don't drill out there even though
crude oil is there.
In fact, we're going to see some new platforms out in the Gulf of
Mexico, but they're not from America. Right here off the coast of
Florida, right there at the tip, there is an oil site, but we're not
drilling there because we don't drill offshore. So the next oil rig you
will see out in the Gulf of Mexico will be built by the Cubans and the
Chinese. They're drilling in areas that we ought to be drilling in
because it has been said in this House we can't drill offshore safely.
That is wrong.
I live in the area that was hit by Katrina and Hurricane Rita, and
when those two hurricanes came through that area, 700 offshore rigs
were damaged or destroyed. But yet, we didn't hear one word about crude
oil seepage from the Gulf of Mexico because it did not happen.
We have the greatest technology in the world for drilling, and we can
drill safely, we've proven that. We've drilled safely, and we will
continue to drill safely.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

ENVIROMENTAL GROUPS ARE DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF GASOLINE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, oil prices have reached $112, $113 a barrel,
an all-time high. Gas prices have reached an average of $3.50 a gallon
and in some places even higher, and the only people who seem to be
happy about this are Sierra Club and some of these other environmental
groups. I have noticed that almost all of these environmental radicals
or environmental extremists seem to come from very wealthy or very
upper-income families. They are elitist types, and perhaps they're not
concerned when their policies destroy jobs and drive up prices because
who they're really hurting are the poor and the lower income and the
working people in this country.
As the previous speaker, Mr. Poe, pointed out, now some of these
environmental groups, their policies are causing food prices to go up
worldwide and, in many countries, leading to starvation. But once
again, the environmentalists are hurting the poor and the lower-income
and the working people. So perhaps they don't care.
About a year and a half ago in one of my newsletters I wrote this: I
said, many experts are still predicting that the price of oil, and thus
the price of gas, is going to go way back up. Environmental groups
think this is good because it will force people to drive less. However,
many people already have difficulty paying their gas bills, especially
people from small towns in rural areas where many people have to drive
long distances to go to work.
And I might add, Mr. Speaker, that when you drive these gas prices
up, as some of these environmental groups want, to $4, or $5, or $6 a
gallon so people will drive less, you'll put the final nails in the
coffins of some of the small towns in rural areas. The environmental
groups loudly complain about urban sprawl, but yet their policies are
leading to more urban sprawl as they continue to drive up these gas
prices.
Syndicated columnist Walter Williams wrote recently, ``If I were an
OPEC big cheese, I would easily conclude I could restrict output and
charge higher prices were U.S. oil drilling restricted. I would see
environmental groups as allies and make `charitable' contributions to
help them reduce U.S. output,'' and that's something I thought for
quite some time that these OPEC and countries and foreign energy
producers I'm sure are contributing big money to these environmental
groups, and they're receiving huge multi-million dollar contributions
that they were refusing to disclose the source of.
Leonardo Mangeri, of the Italian energy company ENI, said, there are
proven oil reserves now, economically and technologically recoverable,
of 1.1 trillion barrels, or 38 years of world usage. In addition, he
says there are another 2 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves that
will be obtainable as technology improves over the next few years.
Also, the International Energy Administration, Mr. Speaker, estimates
that at current prices, it will be economic to recover at least another
2 trillion barrels of petroleum from tar sands and oil shale.
Just a couple of months ago, I wrote in another newsletter this: Gas
prices are far too high and probably will go even higher. They could be
much lower, but very powerful environmental groups want them to go
higher so people will drive less. Thus, we have put 85 percent or 611
million acres of the outer continental shelf off limits to oil
production. We will not allow drilling in 99.9 percent of Alaska where
oil could be found, and have prohibited or restricted production in
other parts of the U.S.
We've also placed so many rules, regulations and red tape on all
types of domestic energy production that small- and medium-sized
businesses cannot compete or even enter these industries in the first
place. All of these productions can be done in environmentally safe
ways. Some of these environmental groups help the big business giants
and foreign energy producers tremendously, but they are really hurting
lower- and middle-income people.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 7 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.

____________________

{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin) at noon.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
God of the founders of this Nation, who has shown us mercy throughout
our history, be attentive to Your people and our needs today. In Your
wisdom, You have established us as stewards of creation. Guide the
Members of Congress and all citizens of this great land in their work
today.
May the dignity of their enterprise bear results, which will unite
Your people and bring about a prosperity that will embrace the least in
our midst and

[[Page 5994]]

reveal the generosity of those richly endowed so to give You ever
greater glory, both now and forever. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

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

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. HARE 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.

____________________

ECONOMY AND EFFORTS TO PASS SECOND ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

(Mr. WILSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, with thousands of Americans losing
their homes and jobs, skyrocketing costs for basic items such as gas
prices at an all-time high, Americans everywhere are feeling the
negative impact of these failed economic policies that we are living
under.
Congress has already enacted an economic stimulus package that will
provide relief to families in need. Last week, House Democrats called
on President Bush to again work in a bipartisan manner on a second
stimulus package, one that would help our economy get back on track.
House Democrats are also working on legislation to help 1.5 million
American families to avoid foreclosure. This legislation goes further
than the President's plan to help only 100,000 homeowners. This one
goes to 1.5 million.
Congressional Democrats are proposing strong initiatives that will
help stabilize the housing market and help jump-start an economy that
is simply leaving just too many people behind.

____________________

THE PELOSI RECESSION

(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, taxes are a function of spending. If you
spend more, you must tax more.
The spending budget we passed previously is predicated on the largest
tax increase in American history. Tax increases are coming to all
Americans. Tax increases are on autopilot.
Without even a vote, tax levels are going to snap back up to the old
levels, the levels that existed before the 2001 and 2003 tax
reductions. In other words, doing nothing is doing something.
One of the reasons for the uncertainty in the market is because
people know these tax increases are coming. All marginal income tax
rates will increase, capital gains rates will increase, the marriage
tax penalty will come back, the child tax credit will decrease, the
death tax will jump back up to 55 percent. This will hurt the economy.
The Democratic leaders have blocked free trade with Colombia, they
have blocked efforts to produce more oil and natural gas resources,
they have blocked lower taxes. All this will hurt the economy.
People are beginning to call this the Pelosi recession. Maybe they
are right.

____________________

HONORING EVA GEIRINGER SCHLOSS

(Mr. HARE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Eva
Geiringer Schloss for her efforts to educate our Nation about the evils
of racism and hate.
Eva was born in Austria in 1929. When the Nazis invaded, she and her
family went into hiding in Amsterdam until they were arrested on Eva's
15th birthday.
Eva was sent to Auschwitz, where she endured the daily degradation of
the concentration camp that robbed so many of their lives. Eva's father
and brother were killed in the Holocaust. She and her mother were
liberated by the Russian army.
Eva Geiringer Schloss has traveled throughout the United States
educating thousands of people about the dangers of unchecked prejudice
and hate. A play based on Eva's life entitled ``And Then They Came for
Me'' has been presented all over the country and will be performed in
my district to mark the Holocaust Remembrance.
It is my honor to recognize Eva, a courageous woman who endured
unimaginable brutality and has dedicated her life to fighting
injustice.

____________________

HONORING RIC FLAIR

(Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I would like to honor the career of a man
whom I am proud to call both a constituent and a friend.
Ric Flair's professional wrestling career of 36 years, in which he
entertained millions of people around the world, recently came to a
close. He will be forever known as an innovator, a pioneer, and,
perhaps, the greatest that his industry has ever seen. By any standard,
Ric Flair is a living legend.
He is recognized all over the world, but he calls Charlotte, North
Carolina, home. On his way to being named a record 16-time world
champion, he became famous for his bleached blond hair, his designer
suits, and his charismatic on-stage persona, while dishing out his
trademark chops, and, of course, the dreaded Figure Four Leglock.
On March 29, 2008, Ric Flair became the first active wrestler to be
ever inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame. Often imitated, but never
duplicated, his legacy will forever be synonymous with the world of
professional wrestling. He is a fixture at Carolina Hurricanes games
and Panthers games in our State. The joy and emotion that Ric Flair's
very presence evokes will continue on for a very, very long time.
Today I honor the career of Nature Boy and congratulate Charlotte's
favorite son, Ric Flair.
Woooo!

____________________

TAX BENEFITS AND RELIEFS

(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, today is the dreaded April 15, and I, like
millions and millions of Americans, have filed my returns and those for
my mother and others.
This Congress has tried to provide and has provided relief for
middle-class taxpayers and middle-income taxpayers and extended those
tax benefits. We have also passed relief for the people who pay the
alternative minimum tax.
But with the stimulus package, we provide moneys for people to get a
refund. But to get that refund, people have to file their taxes. Be
sure and file your taxes, and if your income is $75,000 or less or
$150,000 for a couple, you can get your stimulus relief package passed
by this Congress.
We wish our moneys weren't going to rebuild Baghdad and for war
efforts, but with the work of this Congress, one day we will have
peace, we won't be spending the money in Baghdad, and we will be
spending the money in America to rebuild our infrastructure.

____________________

THE WASHINGTON ELITES

(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the Washington elites are trying to rule the
land like a monarchy, claiming they know best for what they consider
the peasants in the vast rural areas.
Those elitists grew up in privilege and look down on the rest of the
country. The elitists in the imperial kingdom of Washington, DC feel
it's their

[[Page 5995]]

privileged right and obligation to make the peasants happier because
those rural Americans don't know how to take care of themselves.
Well, let me tell you the truth about those peasants. These great
Americans don't look to Washington or the elites or the monarchy for
their happiness. They find their happiness in their individuality. The
folks that I represent in southeast Texas are patriotic citizens, many
from small-town rural America.
They love their families and are proud of America. They are honest,
hard-working independent citizens who, when duty calls, go off to war
to defend this Nation. They attend church on Sunday, and if they don't
attend, they still feel strongly about their religion.
They believe they have the personal right to bear arms. They are not
bitter about life, but they are generally happy. They are not in need
of big government coming in in the name of hope and change to control
more of their lives.
Those in Washington would do well to remember that the salt of the
Earth lives in small-town America. Government should keep out of their
way, instead of interfering with their lives, their faith, and their
right to bear arms.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

BIG OIL

(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, the presumptive Republican nominee for
president, John McCain, has a solution to skyrocketing gas prices.
Is he going to take on Big Oil, their price gouging, and their
obscene profits? No. Is he going to take on OPEC and their collusion to
restrict supply and drive up the price in violation of international
trade law? No.
Is he going to take on the hedge fund speculators on Wall Street that
are driving up the price unnecessarily 50 cents a gallon so then they
can make money? No.
He is going to be the GOP nominee, the Grand Oil Party nominee. He
can't take that money. He has a solution. Suspend the Federal gas tax.
In 1993, the Federal gas tax was 18.3 cents and a gallon of gas was a
buck. In 2008, a gallon of gas is $3.50. The Federal gas tax is the
same 18.3 cents. It's dropped to 5 percent of the cost.
If we follow his plan, we will cancel hundreds of needed bridge
projects and highway projects across the country, throwing construction
workers out of jobs, an already hard-hit sector, or maybe he is just
going to borrow the money after he cancels the gas tax, because the
only thing going up faster on the Republican administration than the
price of gas is the national debt.

____________________

NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK

(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, this week is National Crime Victims'
Rights Week.
This Congress should be working to make our cities, our streets, our
States, our Nation safer for crime victims instead of talking about
things like beaches and protecting union bosses.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was created 10
years ago, and this is about to expire in a few months.
Let me tell you, having spent 21 years on the bench, I probably tried
250 to 300 aggravated sexual assault cases. One was an adult, the
balance were children.
This is epidemic in this country. It's time for this Congress to get
on board and work on the Internet Sex Offender Prohibition Act, which
would punish people for using the Internet to find victims for their
sexual offenses as child predators and would increase and enhance the
punishment for those crimes.
This is important work. This is work this Congress needs to do to
protect our children and make our streets safe.

____________________

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS IS FIGHTING TO MAKE THE TAX CODE FAIR AND PRO-
FAMILY

(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, as millions of middle-class
Americans rush to the post office tonight to drop their tax forms in
the mail, this Democratic Congress is fighting to make the Tax Code
fair and pro-family.
Already this year we passed a budget that makes middle-class tax
relief a priority. Our budget calls for extending middle-income tax
cuts, including child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and 10
percent tax bracket.
Rather than supporting our budget, President Bush and congressional
Republicans continue to push permanent tax cuts for multimillionaires.
For 7 years now, President Bush's tax policy has disproportionately
benefited the wealthiest few in our Nation.
Consider that the average millionaire is being given $120,000 in tax
breaks on their 2007 taxes, while middle-income taxpayers are, on
average, receiving only about $740.
As the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class continues
to grow, we should prioritize middle-class tax cuts. If Congressional
Republicans are serious about providing continued relief to the middle
class, they should support our final budget proposal.

____________________

{time} 1215
MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS

(Mr. ALTMIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, congressional Democrats are prioritizing
tax cuts for the middle class. Our budget made clear that we intend to
extend and pay for the Bush tax cuts that directly impact middle class
families.
In fact, the Democratic budget identifies the specific tax cuts that
we would like to see extended, such as: marriage penalty relief; the 10
percent lower income bracket; the child tax credit; small business
expensing; and the R&D tax credit.
But like our fiscally irresponsible colleagues who advocate a
continuation of this administration's failed economic policies, the
Democratic budget achieves balance in 4 years and ensures that any
increased spending or decreased revenue must be offset by comparable
budget cuts.
Rather than just charging the cost to the national credit card and
increasing our indebtedness to foreign nations like China and Japan,
Democrats want to go in a new direction by ensuring that our budgets
are balanced and our Tax Code is fair for all Americans.

____________________

AMERICANS ASK: WHY IS BUSH SPENDING BILLIONS IN IRAQ

(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, on Tax Day, Americans have a right to ask
why the Bush administration continues to spend taxpayer dollars on an
Iraq war that has no end in sight and no plans for success.
Today, President Bush will spend more than $338 million in Iraq. What
exactly does that mean for the taxpayer sending in his or her form
today? The typical taxpayer covers the cost of the war in Iraq for only
one-half a second.
And while we continue to ship billions of dollars to Iraq while our
economy is going south and our budget deficit continues to hit record
highs every year, the Iraqi government currently has a surplus and is
expecting to receive $40 billion this year in oil revenues. Can someone
please make sense of this policy?
Madam Speaker, the American taxpayer has every right to demand more
accountability from Washington. Congressional Democrats continue to
propose a change in policy, one that shifts more responsibility to the
Iraqis themselves. They can certainly afford it. Unfortunately,
President Bush and his

[[Page 5996]]

supporters in Congress ignore the American people and congressional
Democrats who do not want to see taxpayer dollars wasted in Iraq any
longer.

____________________

SUPPORT TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT

(Mr. McNERNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on Tax Day 2008 in strong
support of H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. I
commend Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery for bringing this
bill to the floor and working hard to simplify our tax policies.
Today's Tax Code has become so complex that it takes more than 25
hours to complete an itemized tax return. That is an hour longer than
2003, and 10 hours longer other than 1989.
Families will benefit significantly from this legislation which
strengthens identity theft and tax fraud protections, stops taxpayer
harassment by ending the private collection of Federal taxes, and
expands tax refund assistance for low-income Americans.
I am also pleased that the provisions in the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act increase online fraud security and allows
individuals to have better recourse in the event of a crime.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5719.

____________________

AMERICANS ASK: WHY IS BUSH SPENDING BILLIONS IN IRAQ

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, today, Tax Day, millions of Americans know
that their tax dollars will support rebuilding Iraq instead of
rebuilding America. Americans have already spent $44 billion in
rebuilding Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a huge oil revenue
reserve.
Today, taxpayers may be wondering how this money could be spent in
Iraq, our money, instead of rebuilding the U.S.A. With the $339 million
that we are spending daily in Iraq, we could instead provide an
additional 18,000 American students with Pell Grants so they can attend
college. We could also hire and keep 4,400 ``COPS on the beat.'' Our
moneys could be used, if we spent them here, to have 2,000 more border
guard agents to protect our borders.
Madam Speaker, as Americans pay their taxes today, they have a right
to know why billions are being spent each month in Iraq instead of here
in the U.S.A.

____________________

DEMOCRATS' FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGET

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, House Democrats' fiscally irresponsible
budget will impose on American workers and businesses a $683 billion
tax hike, the largest in U.S. history.
With our economy slowing and many families losing their homes, the
last thing Congress needs to do is to take more money from these
hardworking Americans. Tax relief, not a tax increase, is the best
stimulant to our economy. Socking 116 million Americans with an average
tax hike of over $1,800 is an irresponsible fiscal strategy.
Working families would be hit especially hard by the Democrats'
irresponsibility. A family of four with two children that currently
earns $50,000 annually would have to pay an additional $2,155 in taxes
under the Democrats' plan. That would amount to a 191 percent increase
in their tax bill.
The last thing our economy needs right now is the largest tax
increase in history. House Republicans are dedicated to protecting
working families, investors, and small businesses from the
irresponsible tax hike that is being foisted upon us.

____________________

TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT

(Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, my friend, the colleague who
spoke just before me, was mentioning a fictitious tax increase. I want
people to know that such a thing does not in fact exist, and I would be
curious to see which law it is.
In the meanwhile, there is no better day than today, April 15, to
talk about the commitment this Congress has made to the American people
to ensure that the Tax Code becomes fairer and simpler for middle class
families.
We must be consistent and make the Tax Code more helpful to families
by prioritizing middle class tax relief, including the child tax
credit, relief from the marriage penalty, and preserving our lowest tax
brackets.
We must also commit to making sure our tax dollars are spent wisely.
The average family pays over $13,000 in Federal taxes; they deserve to
get their money's worth.
For that to happen, we must preserve fiscal discipline, as this
Congress has done by reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules, PAYGO,
meaning we only spend as much money as we have and we do not increase
the deficit for our children and grandchildren. And we must prioritize
important spending such as health care, education, and our national
infrastructure.

____________________

WHY IS BUSH SPENDING BILLIONS IN IRAQ

(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, as our constituents put the finishing
touches on their tax returns, many of them are probably wondering just
how much we will be sending to Iraq.
Taxpayers are rightfully outraged, as are many Members of this body,
by the massive levels of waste, fraud and corruption documented in
large government contracts to well-connected firms. Under the Bush
administration, the use of no-bid contracts has doubled and the Defense
Contract Audit Agency believes that $10 billion of the taxpayers' money
has been spent on questionable or unsupported costs in Iraq contracts.
Madam Speaker, House Democrats are bringing much-needed
accountability to the government contracting business by cracking down
on no-bid contracts, protecting Federal whistleblowers, and withholding
Federal contracts from tax-delinquent companies.
While Democrats would like to see a change of policy in Iraq, we,
like the average taxpayer, want to prevent our money from being wasted.
We are taking the steps necessary to ensure that no longer happens.

____________________

ON TAX DAY, WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?

(Mr. KAGEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, today is Tax Day and everyone in America is
asking the question: Whose side are you on?
Well, I am on the side of Wisconsin taxpayers, and my record proves
it. I have kept my word.
In September of 2006, I stated we should do two things: First,
balance our Federal budget here in Washington like people do back home;
and, second, to reduce taxes for middle class families.
We have kept our word. And like other Democrats, I voted to cut taxes
and balance our Federal budget. We saved 62,000 households in the
Eighth District of Wisconsin from paying the AMT tax; for tax
deductions for health care expenses and property taxes; we voted to cut
taxes for small businesses and S corporations; and we are trying to
make mortgage payments deductible for everyone, whether you itemize or
do not.
We also voted to close tax loopholes that encourage our jobs to be
shipped overseas. We are on the side of the taxpayers. My record proves
it. Today is

[[Page 5997]]

Tax Day. Whose side is your representative on?

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

____________________

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF BRAVERY ACT OF
2008

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4056) to establish an awards mechanism to
honor Federal law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 4056

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 ``Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows:
(1) According to the Department of Justice, in the past 7
years, an average of 150 Federal law enforcement officers per
year sustained physical injuries while dealing with an
assaultive subject.
(2) More than 70 Federal agencies employ Federal law
enforcement officers but only 2 such agencies have an awards
mechanism to recognize Federal law enforcement officers who
are injured in the line of duty.
(3) In contrast to the lack of an awards mechanism for
Federal law enforcement officers, the President awards the
Purple Heart for military personnel wounded or killed during
armed service, and most State and local police departments
have commendations and medals for officers who are injured in
the line of duty.
(4) Formal congressional recognition does not exist to
honor Federal law enforcement officers who are injured in the
line of duty.
(5) It is appropriate for Congress to recognize and honor
the brave men and women in Federal law enforcement who are
injured while putting themselves at personal risk in the line
of duty.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF A BADGE.

The Attorney General may award, and a Member of Congress or
the Attorney General may present, in the name of Congress a
Congressional Badge of Bravery (in this Act referred to as
the ``Badge'') to a Federal law enforcement officer who is
cited by the Attorney General, upon the recommendation of the
Congressional Badge of Bravery Board, for sustaining a
physical injury on or after January 1, 2007, while in the
line of duty.

SEC. 4. NOMINATIONS.

(a) In General.--An agency head may nominate for a Badge an
individual who meets the following criteria:
(1) The individual is a Federal law enforcement officer
working within the agency of the agency head making the
nomination.
(2) The individual sustained a physical injury while in the
line of duty.
(3) The individual faced personal risk when the injury
described in paragraph (2) occurred.
(4) The injury described in paragraph (2) occurred during
some form of conduct characterized as bravery by the agency
head making the nomination.
(b) Contents.--A nomination under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) a written narrative, of not more than 2 pages,
describing the circumstances under which the nominee
sustained a physical injury described in subsection (a) and
how the circumstances meet the criteria described in such
subsection;
(2) the full name of the nominee;
(3) the home mailing address of the nominee;
(4) the agency in which the nominee served on the date when
such nominee sustained a physical injury described in
subsection (a);
(5) the occupational title and grade or rank of the
nominee;
(6) the field office address of the nominee on the date
when such nominee sustained a physical injury described in
subsection (a); and
(7) the number of years of service in the Federal
government by the nominee as of the date when such nominee
sustained a physical injury described in subsection (a).
(c) Submission Deadline.--
(1) Injuries sustained before august 15.--In the case of an
individual who sustained a physical injury described in
subsection (a) on or after January 1 of a year and before
August 15 of such year, to nominate such individual under
such subsection for a Badge, an agency head shall submit such
nomination to the Congressional Badge of Bravery Board by
February 15 of the following year.
(2) Injuries sustained on or after august 15.--In the case
of an individual who sustained a physical injury described in
subsection (a) on or after August 15 of a year, to nominate
such individual under such subsection for a Badge, an agency
head shall submit such nomination to the Congressional Badge
of Bravery Board by February 15 of the second year following
the date on which the individual sustained such physical
injury.

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF BRAVERY BOARD.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Justice a Congressional Badge of Bravery Board
(in this Act referred to as the ``Board'').
(b) Duties.--The duties of the Board are the following:
(1) Design the Badge with appropriate ribbons and
appurtenances.
(2) Select an engraver to produce each Badge.
(3) Not later than July 15 of each year, from among the
nominations timely submitted to the Congressional Badge of
Bravery Board by February 15th of such year, endorse as
recipients of the Badge such nominations who meet the
criteria described in section 4(a) and submit to the Attorney
General a list of such nominations so endorsed.
(4) After submission to the Attorney General of the list
described in paragraph (3)--
(A) procure the Badges from the engraver selected under
paragraph (2);
(B) send a letter announcing the award of each Badge to the
agency head who nominated the endorsed recipient of such
Badge;
(C) send a letter to each Member of Congress representing
the congressional district where the endorsed recipient of
each Badge resides to offer such Member an opportunity to
present such Badge;
(D) provide for the presentation of each Badge in
accordance with section 7; and
(E) provide for the posting of the name of each endorsed
recipient of the Badge on the public Internet site of the
Department of Justice in a manner that acknowledges the
Federal service and bravery of each such recipient.
(5) Set an annual timetable for fulfilling the duties
described in this subsection.
(c) Membership.--
(1) Number and appointment.--The Board shall be composed of
7 members (in this Act referred to as the ``Board members'')
appointed as follows:
(A) One member jointly appointed by the majority leader and
minority leader of the Senate.
(B) One member jointly appointed by the Speaker and
minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(C) One member from the Department of Justice appointed by
the Attorney General.
(D) Four members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association appointed by the Executive Board of the Federal
Law Enforcement Officers Association.
(2) Limitations.--
(A) Applicable to members of the federal law enforcement
officers association.--No more than 5 Board members may be
members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
(B) Applicable to nominating officials.--In the case of a
Board member who is an agency head, if such member nominates
an individual under section 4(a), such member may not
participate in any evaluation or recommendation process of
the Board with respect to such individual.
(3) Qualifications.--Board members shall be individuals
with knowledge or expertise, whether by experience or
training, in the field of Federal law enforcement.
(4) Terms and vacancies.--Each Board member shall be
appointed for 2 years and may be reappointed. A vacancy in
the Board shall not affect the powers of the Board and shall
be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
(d) Operations.--
(1) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Board shall be a
Board member elected by a majority of the Board.
(2) Meetings.--The Board shall conduct its first meeting
not later than 90 days after the appointment of a majority of
Board members. Thereafter, the Board shall meet at the call
of the Chairperson, or in the case of a vacancy of the
position of Chairperson, at the call of the Attorney General.
(3) Voting and rules.--A majority of Board members shall
constitute a quorum to conduct business, but the Board may
establish a lesser quorum for conducting hearings scheduled
by the Board. The Board may establish by majority vote any
other rules for the conduct of the business of the Board, if
such rules are not inconsistent with this Act or other
applicable law.
(4) Staff.--The Board may appoint and fix the pay of
additional qualified personnel as the Board considers
appropriate to assist it in carrying out its duties under
subsection (b).
(e) Powers.--
(1) Hearings.--
(A) In general.--The Board may hold hearings, sit and act
at times and places,

[[Page 5998]]

take testimony, and receive evidence as the Board considers
appropriate to carry out the duties of the Board under this
Act. The Board may administer oaths or affirmations to
witnesses appearing before it.
(B) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before
the Board may be paid the same fees as are paid to witnesses
under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. The per
diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid from
funds appropriated to the Board.
(2) Information from federal agencies.--Subject to sections
552, 552a, and 552b of title 5, United States Code--
(A) the Board may secure directly from any Federal
department or agency information necessary to enable it to
carry out this Act; and
(B) upon request of the Board, the head of that department
or agency shall furnish the information to the Board.
(3) Information to be kept confidential.--The Board shall
not disclose any information which may compromise an ongoing
law enforcement investigation or is otherwise required by law
to be kept confidential.
(f) Compensation.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), Board
members shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each Board member shall receive
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I
of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 6. PRESENTATION OF BADGES.

(a) Presentation by Member of Congress.--A Member of
Congress may present a Badge to any Badge recipient who
resides in such Member's congressional district. If both a
Senator and Representative choose to present a Badge, such
Senator and Representative shall make a joint presentation.
(b) Presentation by Attorney General.--If no Member of
Congress chooses to present the Badge as described in
subsection (a), the Attorney General, or a designee of the
Attorney General, shall present such Badge.
(c) Presentation Arrangements.--The office of the Member of
Congress presenting each Badge may make arrangements for the
presentation of such Badge, and if a Senator and
Representative choose to participate jointly as described in
subsection (a), the Senator and Representative shall make
joint arrangements. The Board shall facilitate any such
presentation arrangements as requested by the congressional
office presenting the Badge and shall make arrangements in
cases not undertaken by Members of Congress.
(d) Limitation.--A Badge may not be awarded under this
section during the 60-day period before the date of a
Congressional election.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(a) Federal Law Enforcement Officer.--The term ``Federal
law enforcement officer'' means a Federal employee--
(1) who has statutory authority to make arrests;
(2) who is authorized by his or her agency to carry
firearms; and
(3) whose duties are primarily--
(A) the investigation, apprehension, or detention of
individuals suspected or convicted of a Federal criminal
offense; or
(B) the protection of Federal officials against threats to
personal safety.
(b) Agency Head.--The term ``agency head'' means the head
of any executive, legislative, or judicial branch government
entity that employs Federal law enforcement officers.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney
General such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

General Leave

{time} 1230

Over 100,000 law enforcement officers are employed by Federal
agencies, including not only the FBI, DEA and ATF, but also the Secret
Service, Forest Service, Park Police, Postal Inspectors and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement officers.
Unbeknownst to many of us, approximately 150 of our Federal officers
are injured in the line of duty each year in this country. However, of
the more than 70 Federal agencies that employ law enforcement officers,
only two, the Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, actually recognize agents injured in
the line of duty.
H.R. 4056 establishes the Congressional Badge of Bravery to honor
Federal law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty, the first
formal congressional award honoring injured law enforcement officers
throughout the entire Federal Government.
The Congressional Badge of Bravery will be awarded to those Federal
law enforcement officers who demonstrate bravery in performance of
their duties, faced personal risk to their safety, and were injured in
the line of duty.
H.R. 4056 establishes a seven-member Badge of Bravery Board within
the Department of Justice. The Board is charged with designing the
badge, selecting recipients and coordinating the presentation of the
award.
Federal law enforcement officers perform an invaluable service in
protecting our Nation from terrorist attacks, apprehending violent
criminals, including sexual predators who prey on our children, and
ensuring the safety of thousands of visitors to America's parks and
forests each year. This badge of bravery is the least we can do to
recognize the dedication and sacrifice of those injured in the line of
duty.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to yield
to the author of this legislation, Mr. Ellsworth, who represents his
district in Indiana with distinction, but also represented the district
as their sheriff

[[Page 5999]]

for many years, and it is therefore very appropriate that I yield to
him 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank Ms. Zoe Lofgren and
Mr. Chabot from Ohio for their support and recommended support for
this. And I rise with great pride today to support the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Congressional Badge of Bravery Act.
As we all know, our Federal law enforcement agencies, including the
Capitol Police that keep us safe every day, are responsible for
providing much of the safety and security that all Americans expect and
enjoy. In big cities and in small towns across the country, Federal law
enforcement officers work to keep our Nation safe from terrorists,
criminals and anybody who seeks to do us harm. This legislation gives
Congress an opportunity to honor their service.
As a career law enforcement officer, I know about the sacrifices that
all law enforcement officers make in service to their communities and
the Nation. I've seen genuine acts of bravery and heroism, and have
also been witness to some of the injuries that can come with the job.
While my experiences are specific to local law enforcement,
Department of Justice statistics show that over the last 7 years, an
average of 150 Federal law enforcement officers each year sustained
physical injuries while dealing with combative subjects as a direct
result of their duties.
Unlike military personnel who are awarded a Purple Heart when wounded
or killed during armed service, and in many States and local police who
receive commendations and medals for sustaining physical injuries, most
Federal law enforcement officers do not receive any official
recognition for similar sacrifices. In fact, while more than 70 Federal
agencies employ Federal law enforcement, only two such agencies, the
DEA and the ATF, have an award mechanism to recognize those officers
who were injured in the line of duty. This is an oversight that we can
correct today.
The bill before us would make great progress in honoring the law
enforcement officers who help keep us safe. It would establish a
Congressional Badge of Bravery that would be awarded to officers
injured in the line of duty while conducting an act of bravery. It
would also provide Members of Congress the opportunity to present the
Congressional Badge of Bravery to the injured officers who are truly
hometown heroes in all of our districts.
It should also be noted that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, which represents more than 26,000 members, supports this
legislation.
Again, I'd like to thank Chairman Conyers and his staff for their
support and hard work and the assistance on this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would just urge my colleagues to
support this important legislation. It has bipartisan support.
Mr. SHULER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4056,
establishing a Federal Law Enforcement Officers Congressional Badge of
Bravery. This resolution will ensure that due public honor and
recognition is given to those Federal law enforcement officers who are
wounded in the line of duty while protecting our Nation and
communities.
Federal law enforcement officers are employed by a multitude of
agencies, yet only two of those agencies have distinct awards
mechanisms to recognize officers wounded in the line of duty. Adopting
this resolution will allow the Attorney General and Members of Congress
the opportunity to honor Federal law enforcement officers from their
districts and commend their actions, which resulted in being wounded,
with a Badge. This honor will bolster recognition for those Federal
officers, as well as raising awareness and pride of their work in the
communities they serve and protect.
Madam Speaker, I commend Congressman Ellsworth on his leadership in
bringing this legislation to the floor. I urge my colleagues today to
vote for this important resolution that will give due honor and respect
to those Federal law enforcement officers wounded in the line of duty
by recognizing them with a Congressional Badge of Bravery.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support
of H.R. 4056 which provides Congress the ability to recognize and honor
the dedicated men and women in Federal law enforcement who risk their
lives and welfare daily while performing necessary and often hazardous
duties.
There are thousands of Federal Law Enforcement Officers, FLEOs,
including those that bravely serve in the Department of Homeland
Security. Of these thousands, some are injured in the course of duty. I
want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to these
individuals, especially given the difficult task they have of enforcing
our laws and protecting our way of life.
In the Department of Homeland Security alone, countless FLEOs serve
to protect the Nation from harm at our borders and ports of entry as
well as our financial, cyber and transportation systems. On a daily
basis, these individuals work diligently, often apprehending or
detaining people suspected of criminal offenses, even if it means
putting themselves in harm's way. Their work is absolutely necessary to
the security and well-being of our country and it should be properly
acknowledged.
While measures exist to award military personnel and State and local
officers for their sacrifices, currently only 2 out of the more than 70
Federal agencies recognize their own valiant FLEOs. Therefore, it is
imperative that Congress address and highlight the value of these
distinguished men and women by establishing a Congressional Badge of
Bravery. I urge all my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4056, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

SUPPORTING THE MISSION AND GOALS OF NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1053) supporting the mission
and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights week in order to increase
public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and
survivors of crime in the United States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 1053

Whereas 23,000,000 Americans are victims of crime each
year, and of those, 5,200,000 are victims of violent crime;
Whereas a just society acknowledges crime's impact on
individuals, families, and communities by ensuring that
rights, resources, and services are available to help rebuild
lives;
Whereas victims' rights are a critical component of the
promise of ``justice for all,'' the foundation for our system
of justice in America;
Whereas although our Nation has steadily expanded rights,
protections, and services for victims of crime, too many
victims are still not able to realize the hope and promise of
these gains;
Whereas we must do better to ensure services are available
for underserved segments of our population, including crime
victims with disabilities, victims with mental illness,
victims who are teenagers, victims who are elderly, victims
in rural areas, and victims in communities of color;
Whereas observing victims' rights and treating victims with
dignity and respect serves the public interest by engaging
victims in the justice system, inspiring respect for public
authorities, and promoting confidence in public safety;
Whereas America recognizes that we make our homes,
neighborhoods, and communities safer and stronger by serving
victims of crime and ensuring justice for all;
Whereas our Nation must strive to protect, expand, and
observe crime victims' rights so that there truly is justice
for victims and justice for all; and
Whereas National Crime Victims' Rights Week, April 13, 2008
through April 19, 2008, provides an opportunity for us to
strive to reach the goal of justice for all by ensuring that
all victims are afforded their legal rights and provided with
assistance as they face the financial, physical, and
psychological impact of crime: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--

[[Page 6000]]

(1) supports the mission and goals of the 2008 National
Crime Victims' Rights Week in order to increase public
awareness of the impact of crime on victims and survivors of
crime, and of the rights and needs of such victims and
survivors; and
(2) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to
transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Office
for Victims of Crime in the Department of Justice.

General Leave

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the National Center for Victims of Crime reports that
approximately 23 million Americans are victimized by crime each year.
Of these, more than 5 million are victims of violent crime.
Victims of crime can suffer from a broad range of adverse effects,
ranging from the physical to the psychological. Some experience
financial distress resulting from a disruption in employment.
Unfortunately, some of the most vulnerable of our society are also
among those who are most commonly the victims of crime. People of color
suffer disproportionately from violent crime. The poor and uneducated
are often the target of financial schemes. And, sadly, children are
victimized more than any other group.
A just society demands that we always bear in mind the suffering that
crime victims endure and work to reduce the incidence of the crime that
causes that suffering.
This bill will increase public awareness about the effects of crime
on its victims and their families as well as our communities.
As part of today's debate, I would also like to point out that the
Office for Victims of Crime offers a full array of assistance help for
crime victims. By supporting this office and its programs on an ongoing
basis we can help ensure that victims are afforded their legal rights
and the necessary assistance to overcome the effects of being
victimized by crime.
I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 1053.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important resolution
and the 28th annual observance of National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
This year's theme, ``Justice for Victims, Justice for All'' is
appropriate. Too often, victims of crime are made to be victims a
second time, first as a result of the crime, but second as a result of
our criminal justice system, the very system designed to protect them.
In 2004, 20 years after Congress enacted the Victims of Crime Act,
Congress enacted the Justice for All Act. This was a significant
victory for crime victims, as it extended a number of enforceable
rights to crime victims, including the right to be reasonably heard at
any public proceeding involving release, plea or sentencing, the right
to file a motion to reopen a plea, or sentence in certain
circumstances, and, most importantly, the right to be treated with
dignity, fairness and respect.
Despite enactment, enforcement of these rights is just one of a
number of important changes that needs to occur to ensure that our
Nation's criminal justice system is just for both offenders and the
victims of those crimes.
In a hearing held by the Crime Subcommittee 3 weeks ago, testimony
was presented revealing that crime victims continue to bear the brunt
of crimes. According to the Department of Justice, crime costs victims
and their families more than $105 billion in lost earnings, public
victim assistance and medical expenses.
For example, despite a victim's right to full and timely restitution,
it remains one of the most underenforced victims' rights within our
justice system. In fact, more than $50 billion in criminal debt,
including restitution and fines, were uncollected in 2007. And the
amount of outstanding criminal debt is only expected to increase,
ballooning from $269 million to almost $13 billion. And in my own State
of Ohio, more than $1.2 billion in criminal debt remained uncollected
at the end of fiscal year 2007.
While I appreciate the majority's effort to recognize National Crime
Victims' Rights Week, I believe that more than just lip service can be
done to help victims. Many of us have introduced good legislation, such
as H.R. 845, the Criminal Restitution Improvement Act of 2007, or H.R.
4110, restitution legislation introduced by Representative Shea-Porter
that will do more to assist victims.
If we all agree that crime victims bear the brunt of crimes, then why
not pass a bill such as H.R. 845, that makes restitution mandatory and
strengthens collection efforts?
Enforcement of these rights is the type of legislation that crime
victims and their families need and deserve to help rebuild their
lives, not just the recognition that they exist on paper.
I appreciate the work that my colleagues, Mr. Costa and Mr. Poe, have
done on the Victims' Rights Caucus and in introducing this resolution.
National Crime Victims Week serves many purposes, including to remind
us what victims have suffered and the need to include them in the
criminal justice system, to thank those individuals and organizations
who have selflessly dedicated themselves to assisting victims, and to
urge us all to rededicate ourselves to advance the cause of the victims
of crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the victims of crime and their
families and those that help them rebuild their lives by supporting
this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to
recognize my colleague from California, the author of this bill,
Congressman Jim Costa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding me the time.
I rise today to introduce House Resolution 1053 with my colleague,
Congressman Ted Poe. This supports the mission of the goals of National
Crime Victims' Rights Week, and that designated that this week, April
13 to April 19, as National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
Congressman Poe and I introduced this resolution on behalf of Victim
Rights Caucus members who have joined this effort over the recent
years.
In 1980 President Reagan first called for a national observance to
recognize and honor millions of victims of crime in our country, their
families and survivors. And with a bipartisan effort in Congress, that
took place.
National Crime Victims' Rights Week also pays tribute to thousands of
community-based systems for victims service providers, who, in fact,
provide support to the criminal justice system and allied
professionals, who, in fact, help those victims of crime every week
throughout the country.
This year's theme for National Crime Victims' Rights Week is
``Justice for Victims, Justice for All.'' We, as a Nation, must do more
to ensure that all victims of crime are afforded their legal rights and
provided with assistance as they face financial, physical and
oftentimes psychological impacts of crime.
When I first arrived in Washington almost 4 years ago, there was a
lack of an advocacy group of behalf of victims' rights and issues.
Congressman Ted Poe and I decided, as new Members, that we would put
together a Victim Rights Caucus. We're very proud of the effects of
this caucus in the first 4 years of its origin.
The goals of our caucus are simple: One, to represent crime victims
in the United States in a bipartisan effort by supporting legislation
that reflects their interests and their needs.

[[Page 6001]]

Two, to provide ongoing forum for proactive discussion between
Congress and national victims assistance organizations to enhance
mutual education, legislative advocacy and initiatives which promote
justice for all, including, most importantly, the victims of crime.
Three, to seek opportunities for education to public education
initiatives to help those in the United States to understand the impact
on crime on victims and to encourage their involvement in crime
prevention, victim assistance and community safety.
And, fourth, to protect the restitution fund that was initiated in
the early 1980s. Those restitution funds go to the benefits of victims
of crimes. Unfortunately, this administration has tried to redirect
those restitution funds, which are not taxpayers dollars, but, in fact,
criminal dollars, to the general fund. This Congress and the previous
Congress prevented that from occurring.
Our caucus has been very successful. We have authored legislation,
and I want to thank Congressman Ted Poe for cochairing the caucus with
me, and for all of the Members of the House of Representatives who
belong to this caucus.
Crime victims are our sons, our daughters, our brothers and our
sisters, or neighbors and our friends. And they are struggling to
survive in the aftermath of crime. They deserve our support.

{time} 1245

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who before joining us here in Congress
was a very distinguished judge who was recognized for his leadership in
working to promote the interests of victims of crime.
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio
yielding.
Madam Speaker, victims of crime are real people. They are our
friends, our relatives and our neighbors, and unfortunately, because of
our culture, they have been for many years overlooked in the criminal
justice system. Well, I think those days are over because they are as
important as defendants, because the same Constitution that protects
the rights of defendants in the courtroom, that same Constitution
protects the rights of victims of crime.
Since 1981, this country celebrates National Crime Victims' Rights
Week in April. Local communities hold rallies and candlelight vigils
and a number of other activities to honor the millions of crime victims
and survivors in the United States and also to recognize those many
individuals that work with crime victims.
This week is National Crime Victims' Rights Week, and this year's
theme is ``Justice for Victims, Justice for All.'' It is a very
appropriate theme because we cannot achieve justice for all until there
is some justice, total justice, for victims of crime.
The victims' right movement has come a long way. The days when a
victim was just a mere witness in the courthouse are not far gone.
While we are always sure to safeguard the rights of defendants, our
justice system must also safeguard the rights of victims of crime.
The victims' rights movement dates all the way back to 1965 when the
first crime victim compensation program was started in the State of
California. Five States enacted similar legislation by 1970, and then
we saw that organization, what we call the MADD mothers, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, come into being to advocate on behalf of victims
of crime who had been hurt by those people who drink and drive.
In 1975, activists across the country united and formed the National
Organization for Victim Assistance to expand victim services and
promote the rights of victims.
In 1978, three more important organizations started: the National
Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, and a group of somber individuals called Parents of
Murdered Children, all of them advocating on behalf of crime victims.
President Reagan in 1981 proclaimed the first National Victims'
Rights Week in April, and that was also the year that 6-year-old Adam
Walsh was abducted from a department store and later murdered,
prompting a national campaign to educate the public on missing children
and to pass better legislation--Federal legislation, to protect our
greatest natural resource, the young that live among us.
In 1982, the Federal Government created the Office for Victims of
Crime, or OVC, within the Department of Justice, a tremendous
organization that sees after the victims of crime in our country.
Then, in 1984, the Congress passed the Victims of Crime Act, what we
call VOCA, one of the most novel concepts that Congress has ever
adopted. What it does is require that people convicted in Federal
courts, those defendants, once they are convicted, they pay moneys into
a fund, and that fund is used to help crime victims throughout the
United States. It is a tremendous idea, making defendants pay for the
system they have created, pay the rent on a courthouse as I like to
call it. And today, Madam Speaker, that fund is over $1.7 billion,
contributed not by taxpayers but by offenders, that goes for the
specific purpose of helping victims, helping victims' organizations
like rape centers, domestic violence shelters, and victim advocates
that help victims throughout the turmoil of being a crime victim.
In 2005, my first year in Congress, I was honored to form the
Victims' Rights Caucus with the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa),
who was a long-time victims' advocate in the State of California before
he ever came to Congress. And this bipartisan, but yet nonpartisan,
caucus now has 44 members, and we do everything we can to raise the
awareness of crime victims here in the Federal Government.
In 2006, 25 years after Adam Walsh's murder that I just mentioned
earlier, President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act, which requires sex offenders and child molesters, once they
leave the Federal penitentiary or State penitentiaries, to register on
the national database so that we keep up with those people who wish to
prey on our communities.
Madam Speaker, crime victims don't have a lobbyist up here in
Washington. They don't have some high-dollar lobbyist to work for them
and advocate on their behalf. But we are their lobbyists. We advocate
on behalf of all crime victims because that's what we do here in
Congress, to take and protect the best that we have among us, and
that's crime victims.
I urge community leaders and organizations to celebrate how far the
victims' rights movement has come but also to continue to recognize the
importance of crime victims that live among us because, Madam Speaker,
justice is the one thing we should always find, and hopefully crime
victims can find justice at the courthouse in our day and time.
And that's just the way it is.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I wonder if the
gentleman from Ohio has additional speakers.
Mr. CHABOT. We have no additional speakers, and we would be happy to
yield back our time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would urge my
colleagues to support this resolution. It's bipartisan. It's important.
I just recalled, as I was listening to both Mr. Poe and Mr. Costa
taking the lead and I thank them both for that, my more than 10 years
on the Victim Witness Assistance Board, when I was in local government,
and the tremendous need there is for people who have been victims and
then who are also witnesses to receive the assistance from society that
they need so much.
So I appreciate the efforts of both gentlemen and our colleagues who
are in this caucus and urge support.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1053.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the

[[Page 6002]]

rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 1095) recognizing and honoring the 40th
anniversary of congressional passage of title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and the 20th anniversary of the Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 1095

Whereas April 11, 2008, marks the 40th anniversary of
congressional passage of the Fair Housing Act;
Whereas September 13, 2008, marks the 20th anniversary of
congressional passage of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988;
Whereas the Chicago Freedom Movement, led by the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., expanded the fight for civil
rights from the South to the North, raised the national
consciousness about housing discrimination, and shaped the
debate that led to the landmark fair housing legislation, the
Fair Housing Act;
Whereas the National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders, appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and
commonly known as the Kerner Commission, found in 1968 that
``[o]ur nation is moving toward two societies, one black and
one white--separate and unequal'';
Whereas Congress passed the Fair Housing Act as part of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, and President Lyndon B. Johnson
signed the Act into law on April 11, 1968, one week after the
assassination of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.;
Whereas the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in
housing and housing-related transactions on the basis of
race, color, national origin, and religion;
Whereas in section 808 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, Congress amended the Fair Housing
Act to include protection on the basis of sex;
Whereas the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, passed by
overwhelming margins in Congress, included protection on the
basis of familial status and disability, created an important
enforcement mechanism, and expanded the definition of
``discriminatory housing practices'' to include interference
and intimidation, requiring the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to issue regulations to implement and
interpret the Fair Housing Act and report annually to
Congress on the nature and extent of housing discrimination;
Whereas the intent of Congress in passing the Fair Housing
Act was broad and inclusive, to advance equal opportunity in
housing and achieve racial integration for the benefit of all
people in the United States;
Whereas housing integration affects educational attainment,
employment opportunities, access to health care, and home
equity;
Whereas the majority of Americans support neighborhood
integration, and numerous studies have shown the universal
benefits of residential integration;
Whereas more than 4,000,000 violations of fair housing laws
still occur each year against people of all protected
classes, and testing of the enforcement of fair housing laws
continues to uncover a high rate of discrimination in the
rental, sales, mortgage lending, and insurance markets;
Whereas less than 1 percent of violations of fair housing
laws are reported each year;
Whereas fair housing centers funded by Fair Housing
Initiatives Program (FHIP) are the frontline in the effort to
resolve housing discrimination;
Whereas in 2006, approximately 27,000 housing
discrimination complaints were filed, of which 18,000
complaints were resolved by fair housing centers;
Whereas the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) funds
fair housing grants annually on a non-competitive basis to
State and local fair housing enforcement agencies which are
used for complaint processing, administrative costs, special
enforcement efforts, training and other projects designed to
enhance the agency's administration and enforcement of its
fair housing law;
Whereas fair housing education and enforcement play a
pivotal role in increasing housing choice and minority
homeownership and combating predatory lending; and
Whereas the Fair Housing Act is an essential component of
our Nation's civil rights legislation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes and honors the 40th anniversary of the
enactment of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.)
and the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-430; 102 Stat. 1619);
(2) supports activities to recognize and celebrate the
important historical milestones represented by the
anniversaries of the enactment of the Fair Housing Act and
the enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; and
(3) encourages all people and levels of government to
rededicate themselves to the enforcement and the ideals of
fair housing laws.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

General Leave

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
House Resolution 1095 recognizes the 40th anniversary of the Fair
Housing Act, enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
On April 11, 1968, days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Fair Housing
Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color,
religion or national origin. Twenty years later today, the law was
expanded by the Fair Housing Amendments Act to include protections
against discrimination based also on sexual orientation, familial
status, and disability.
Many may not recall Dr. King's advocacy for fair housing, but he
recognized the tremendous costs our society pays if patterns of
segregated living continues, as it has.
While there is no question that the Fair Housing Act has become a
powerful tool for advancing civil rights, there is much more to be
done. For instance, most Americans still live in communities largely
divided by race, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance.
An estimated 3.7 million people are discriminated against in housing
transactions every single year. This number doesn't even include
instances of discrimination against persons with disabilities, nor does
it reflect discriminatory lending in insurance practices, planning and
zoning, or other forms of profiling. We have so much more to do.
Enforcement is a key area where we need further improvement. For
example, while 27,000 complaints of housing discrimination were filed
with the Federal Government last year, Housing and Urban Development
issued 31 charges, and the Justice Department filed 35 cases.
Landlords, real estate agents, lenders, insurance agents, and others
know they face limited risk of prosecution for discrimination. Even
those who are prosecuted often pay such a minor penalty that
discrimination today becomes just another cost of doing business. It's
no surprise that housing providers continue to discriminate and
communities across our Nation sadly remain highly segregated.
The most recent manifestation of discrimination in housing is the
current sub-prime foreclosure crisis, which presents some of the
greatest fair housing and civil rights issues facing our Nation today.
Fueled by reverse red-lining practices, the sub-prime foreclosure
crisis is now causing extreme havoc for minority owners who were
targeted for predatory home loans that stripped away their home equity
and put their houses at risk of foreclosure. It's also affected
financing markets all over the world.
If left unchecked, the foreclosure crisis threatens to wipe out many
of the advances the country has made in the 40 years since the passage
of the Fair Housing Act.
To be an effective tool in our fight against discrimination, the Fair
Housing Act must be enforced, and we need to augment it with tough
anti-predatory lending legislation, which is what I intend to do.

[[Page 6003]]

We should also enact legislation permitting bankruptcy judges to
restructure home mortgages so deserving families can save their homes
from foreclosure and, thereby, stem falling housing prices in
communities all across our Nation.
After centuries of discrimination and denied opportunities, enactment
of the Fair Housing Act 40 years ago marked a milestone in our Nation's
efforts to achieve equal housing opportunities.
And so today, we celebrate the Fair Housing Act's 40th anniversary
with, I hope, a renewed commitment to achieving and furthering its
goals by supporting this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1095,
a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the passage of the
Fair Housing Act.
On April 4, 2008, just 11 days ago, this Nation joined together to
pay tribute to the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., and recognize his contributions to this Nation.

{time} 1300

Thus, it's only fitting that we recognize one aspect of Dr. King's
legacy, passage of the Fair Housing Act, which was signed into law by
President Lyndon Johnson on April 11, 1968, just one week after Dr.
King's tragic assassination.
The act, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and
financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, and
later handicap and family status, was another tool to give meaning to
the rights and protections afforded to all citizens by the
Constitution.
Passage of the Fair Housing Act was a fitting memorial to Dr. King,
as his name was closely associated with fair housing legislation since
the 1966 ``open housing'' marches in Chicago.
At the same time, Senator Edward Brooke, the first African American
ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, helped facilitate
this Act's passage by describing his difficulties finding housing for
his new family following his service in World War II.
The first official appointed to administer the act was former
Governor George Romney. Secretary Romney assumed his position of
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development after serving as Governor of
Michigan, where he successfully campaigned for the ratification of a
State constitutional amendment that prohibited discrimination in
housing.
Since its enactment, the Fair Housing Act has prevented both
countless instances of specific discrimination as well as broader
patterns or practices of discrimination in housing programs. In
addition, the act serves to punish those who attempt to disguise their
discriminatory motives by giving false information to potential
homebuyers, or by manipulating zoning codes. It prohibits sexual
harassment in housing, and enables the disabled to more easily
assimilate into our communities.
Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't also commend and
recognize the chairman of the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, both for his
remarks, and also working with myself in a bipartisan manner on the
issue that he raised about those that find themselves at risk of having
their homes foreclosed upon. And I agree with him that we ought to give
the bankruptcy judges additional powers to modify those particular
agreements so that they can have a better chance of retaining their
homes. That certainly would move forward those that find themselves at
risk of losing their own homes. Again, I want to thank the chairman of
the committee for working with us in a bipartisan manner on that issue.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution today,
and in celebrating the 40th anniversary of passage of the Fair Housing
Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), the ranking member, for his great work on the matter.
And now I recognize the Reverend Al Green of Texas, the author of
this idea, for 4 minutes.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. However, the
promotion I cannot claim. I'm still a lowly Member of the House of
Representatives, not yet made it to that lofty level of being a
reverend, but you are very kind. And I thank you for the many years of
work that you have dedicated to this very issue that we have on the
floor today. In fact, it can be said that your great work has caused us
to have this opportunity to be here today.
I also would like to thank the ranking member, Lamar Smith, for his
work in helping us to bring this to the floor, and the manager of the
time, Member Steve Chabot, for your services that you've rendered as
well. And I appreciate especially the comments that you've made today.
In celebrating or commemorating or recognizing the 40th anniversary
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, we are, in truth, recognizing the
efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King because it was Dr. Martin Luther King
who went to Memphis some 40 years ago to help what we call sanitation
workers today, but back then we called them garbage men.
Dr. King had a basic premise of trying to help somebody. And to him,
these persons, although known as garbage men, they were somebody. And
he went there to help them in their efforts to obtain equal justice.
And while there, the unfortunate circumstance occurred, and we lost Dr.
King prematurely. But I do believe that he did not live in vain.
There is a spiritual song styled, ``If I can help somebody as I
travel along, if I can help someone with a word or a song, if I can
help someone from doing wrong, then my living shall not be in vain.''
Dr. King lived not in vain because this act, the Fair Housing Act, was
passed after his demise. There are some historians who contend that it
was his demise, in fact, that created the opportunity for it to pass as
timely as it did.
And I am honored that Dr. King took up the cause of the lowly garbage
men. However, 40 years later, there is still great work to be done, as
has been indicated by the chairman, because 40 years later there are
approximately four million acts of housing discrimination each year in
this country. Forty years later, approximately 27,000 acts of housing
discrimination and complaints are filed annually. Forty years later, 13
fair housing groups have closed their doors due to a lack of funding.
Forty years later, 26 fair housing centers, or one-quarter of all fair
housing centers, have either closed their doors or are at risk of
closing their doors due to a lack of funding.
Forty years later, 87 percent of African Americans, Latinos and Asian
Americans meet with real estate agents and experience some form of
steering. Steering occurs when the agent will send a person of one
ethnicity to an area where persons of this ethnicity may be residing,
whites to white neighborhoods, blacks to black neighborhoods, or
neighborhoods that are going into some form of transition. Forty years
later, 20 percent of the African Americans and Latinos trying to buy or
rent homes have their cause ignored.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Less than 1 percent of housing discrimination
acts are reported 40 years later.
So we need to do something to change this. We need to fully fund the
fair housing programs. FHIP, the Fair Housing Initiative Program,
should be fully funded to about $52 million.
This program allows us to do what is known as testing, the means by
which we acquired the empirical evidence that housing discrimination
has actually occurred. There is no substitute for FHIP and the testing
that takes place.
But also there is a piece of legislation, the Fair Housing Act of
2007, or H.R. 2926, which will give HUD some additional authority, will
establish competitive grants, will help us to examine the causes of
housing discrimination and talk about what we can do and, in fact,
conclude what we can do to make remedies.

[[Page 6004]]

If we want to live not in vain as Dr. King did, let's help somebody.
Let's do something about discrimination in housing and make real the
great American ideal of owning a home.
Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the
House Judiciary Committee, Mel Watt, for as much time as he may
consume. And I note that, although the gentleman from Texas is not a
minister, we may all agree that he is a good preacher.
Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1095, the
resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.
The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, was passed
by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in April of
1968, only 1 week after the assassination of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther
King.
This landmark act, the primary purpose of which is to prohibit
discrimination in housing, introduced meaningful Federal enforcement
mechanisms for buyers and renters. The Federal Housing Act initially
prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion and
national origin. Sex was subsequently added to the list of protected
classes in 1974, and disability and family status were added in 1988.
Forty years later, in 2008, effective and meaningful enforcement of
these fair housing laws continues to be critically important. It is
essential that we continue to combat housing discrimination, which
still exists today, not just by enacting laws, but by enforcing those
that we have on the books already.
This is a meaningful piece of legislation, and I'm honored to pay
tribute to the importance of it, but more importantly, to pay tribute
and to recognize that enforcement continues to be a problem, and that
discrimination in housing continues to exist.
With that, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the
Honorable Maxine Waters of California for as much time as she may
consume.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in strong support of
this resolution offered by my colleague, Mr. Green, from Houston
commemorating the 40th anniversary of title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968 and the 20th anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988.
The history of the Fair Housing Act embodies both our Nation's most
noble instincts and recent behavior by our Federal Government, which
should make none of us proud.
On April 11, 1968, one week to the day after the assassination of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed and the President signed into
law the Federal Fair Housing Act which now prohibits discrimination in
housing based on race, national origin, religion, color, sex, familial
status and disability.
Acting on this legislation, which has been stalled in this body for
over 2 years, was a fitting tribute to Dr. King and reflected a belief
that something constructive could be achieved in the aftermath of days
of unrest in cities across the country.
In 1988, the law was amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act,
which significantly strengthened the enforcement powers of the act,
giving the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Justice the
authority to mandate and to enforce the expanded and comprehensive
requirements of the act. Unfortunately, while we can be proud of
passing these landmark statutes, the sad fact is that the Fair Housing
Act remains the least enforced of our Nation's civil rights laws.
Through the work of local housing groups like the Housing Rights
Center in my district in Los Angeles, we know that more than 3.7
million people are discriminated against in housing transactions every
year, and we are on the brink of an economic crisis fueled by a failed
subprime lending market built primarily on borrowers and neighborhoods
of color.
The current foreclosure crisis is the outgrowth of persistent
discrimination in housing, lending and insurance markets that took
place under the negligent eyes of the very Federal agencies charged
with enforcing our Nation's antidiscrimination laws. In 2007, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development issued only 31 charges of
discrimination, and the Department of Justice filed just 35 cases.
Sadly, the risk posed by lax enforcement of the Fair Housing Act is
no less than the resegregation of America. While we have made some
progress in reducing levels of residential segregation, most Americans
live in communities largely divided by race and ethnicity. Perhaps more
distressingly, our children are attending increasingly segregated
schools. Recent research demonstrates that by 2000, minority students
were in schools with substantially fewer white students than was the
case a decade earlier. We must reduce those troubling trends.
To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution offered
by Mr. Green, whose dedication to the housing needs of America and
America's most vulnerable households is second to that of no other
member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, which I
chair.
Additionally, in my role as Chair, I'm joining Mr. Green in
rededicating myself to the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act,
starting with making plans for a joint hearing with the Constitution
Subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Nadler of New York, to hold the inadequate
efforts of both HUD and the Department of Justice up to congressional
scrutiny.

{time} 1315

The best way to celebrate the anniversary of the Fair Housing Act is
to take concrete actions to enforce both its letter and spirit.
Mr. Chairman of our Judiciary Committee, whose lifelong work has been
to end discrimination and to enforce fair housing and to enforce civil
rights, I just thank you for having the opportunity to work with you.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I recognize now the gentlewoman from
Oakland, California, a valuable member of the House (Ms. Lee), for such
time as she may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will note that
there are only 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. LEE. Let me first say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
I want to thank you also for staying the course for freedom, justice,
and equality for so many years. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, and thank you
for yielding.
Madam Speaker, let me say that I rise in strong support of H. Res.
1095, and I also must thank Congressman Al Green for introducing this
very important resolution but also for his consistent voice for liberty
and justice for all. Thank you, Congressman Green.
The Fair Housing Act was critical in ending the rampant
discrimination in the housing industry 40 years. Today the Fair Housing
Act continues to play a vital and significant role in ensuring fair and
equal access to housing for all Americans.
It is in part due to the failure, however, of this administration to
enforce these civil rights laws that led to the predatory lending
practices that fueled the housing crisis our Nation now faces.
Just like many other innovative and progressive ideas about equality
and fairness, I must remind us of the fact that the Fair Housing Act
had a California precursor: the Rumford Fair Housing Act, one of the
first fair housing laws in the Nation. Former Assemblyman William Byron
Rumford, the first African American from Northern California elected to
the California legislature, and whose seat I was later honored to hold,
passed this landmark bill in 1963, and today I also honor his memory
and his legacy.
But like many today who argue that the housing and financial services
industries do not need further oversight or regulation, I must remind
us also that during this period, a candidate for governor over 40 years
ago, Ronald Reagan, fought very hard against fair housing laws. But,
thankfully, Ronald Reagan lost his fight to make housing discrimination
the law in California, and 40 years ago the Congress passed the Fair
Housing Act to outlaw discrimination in housing in every State of the
union. Like my colleagues, I also honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther

[[Page 6005]]

King, Jr. today as we pass this resolution.
Unfortunately, today the promise of fair housing remains unfulfilled.
De facto segregation has kicked in. Subprime mortgages have unfairly
hit African Americans and the Latino community and other communities of
color. So we must work to educate Americans about their right to fair
housing and work together to enforce the law. And we must fully fund
fair housing programs to at least the tune of $84 million in fiscal
2009.
So, Madam Speaker, we must recommit ourselves today to make these
critical investments a guarantee for fair housing for all Americans.
Housing should be a basic human right in our great country.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res.
1095, ``Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act'',
introduced by a fellow Texan, Representative Al Green.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the nation's
housing agency committed to increasing homeownership, particularly
among minorities; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-
income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with
disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes
economic and community development and enforces the nation's fair
housing laws.
However, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), more than 10,000 people filed housing discrimination complaints
last year, mostly from persons with disabilities. HUD also found that
race-based housing discrimination was the second most frequent reason
individuals filed complaints.
Of the more than 10,000 complaints filed last year, 43 percent
alleged discrimination against persons with disabilities while 37
percent alleged racial discrimination. Most complainants claimed to be
victims of discrimination in the terms and conditions of the sale or
rental of housing, or outright refusal to rent.
The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at HUD
stated that ``Forty years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, an
alarming number of families are still being denied housing and still
need the protections this landmark law offers.'' Assistant Secretary
Kim Kendrick's remarks only underscore the importance of HUD's
continued enforcement, instruction, and outreach activities to ensure
that all Americans have equal access to housing opportunities.
Currently HUD has placed fair housing advertisements on more than 900
movie screens throughout the country. These advertisements inform
viewers that it is unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, or
financing of housing and provided HUD's toll-free telephone number, for
those that may have experienced or witnessed unlawful discrimination.
Another part of HUD's outreach in this area is its training program,
Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST, which has trained 1,351 individuals
in 22 training sessions in 17 states on the Fair Housing Act's design
and construction requirements for multifamily housing.

Texas

On March 27th, HUD announced that the Texas State Program and the
cities of Houston and New Braunfels will receive a total of
$234,868,077 to support community development and produce more
affordable housing. HUD's annual funding will also provide down payment
assistance to first-time homebuyers; assist individuals and families
who might otherwise be living on the streets; and offer real housing
solutions for individuals with HIV/AIDS.
This funding will help Texas to reconstruct its neighborhoods and
affordable housing stock by helping communities to improve their
infrastructure or assisting families to purchase their first home, HUD
is helping improve neighborhoods from the ground up.
The funding announced includes: Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds; HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding; American
Dream Down payment assistance; Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG); and,
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA).
Since 1974, HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
has provided more than $120 billion to state and local governments to
target their own community development priorities. The rehabilitation
of affordable housing and the improvement of public facilities have
traditionally been the largest uses of CDBG although the program is
also an important catalyst for job growth and business opportunities.
Annual CDBG funds are distributed to communities according to a
statutory formula based on a community's population, poverty, and age
of its housing stock, and extent of overcrowded housing.
HOME (HOME Investment Partnerships Program) is the largest federal
block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively to
produce affordable housing for low-income families. Since 1992, more
than 600 communities have completed more than 834,000 affordable
housing units, including 352,000 for new homebuyers. In addition,
186,000 tenants have received direct rental assistance.
The American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI) helps first-time
homebuyers with the biggest hurdles to homeownership--down payment and
closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time
homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for
down payment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in
conjunction with the assisted home purchase. Since the program's
inception, ADDI has assisted nearly 29,000 families to purchase their
first home.
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) helps local communities to meet the
basic shelter needs of homeless individuals and families. These grants
also provide transitional housing and a variety of support services
designed to move the homeless away from a life on the street toward
permanent housing. This block grant program, along with more than $14
million HUD awarded New Orleans and Jefferson Parish by competition,
helps thousands of local homeless assistance programs to help those who
would otherwise be living on the streets.
HUD's Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) grants are
distributed to states and cities based on the number of AIDS cases
reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The grants
provide resources for operating community residences and providing
rental assistance and support services to individuals with HIV/AIDS and
their families. In addition, the HOPWA program also helps many
communities develop strategic AIDS housing plans and fill in gaps in
local systems of care. A stable home environment is a critical
component for low-income persons managing complex drug therapies and
potential side effects from their treatments.

Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Housing

Over the past year, we have seen a crisis in subprime mortgage
lending, which has threatened the stability of the housing market and
the livelihoods of large numbers of Americans. This Democratic Congress
is committed to strengthening the housing market and stabilizing the
economy, and we have passed important legislation to address this
crisis.
Due to the lack of regulation by the federal government, many loans
were accompanied by fraud, predatory lending, inadequate information
and other failures of responsible marketing. With exceptionally high
(and rising) foreclosure rates across the country, homeowners all over
America are losing their homes.
The sub-prime mortgage crisis has impacted families and communities
across the country. Home foreclosure filings rose to 1.2 million in
2006--a 42 percent jump--due to rising mortgage bills and a slowing
housing market. Nationally, as many as 2.4 million sub-prime borrowers
have either lost their homes or could lose them in the next few years.
It is critical that we address this crisis. The Bush administration
and the mortgage industry must reach agreement that matches the scale
of the problem. If you produce an inadequate agreement, or fail
outright, the cost to our economy will be incalculable. The freeze on
foreclosures would give the housing market time to stabilize and
homeowner's time to build equity.
The 110th Congress has demonstrated its commitment to moving America
in a New Direction by raising the minimum wage, implementing the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, opposing the war in Iraq,
improving children's health care coverage, increasing aid to the Gulf
Coast, passing energy reform, instituting fiscal discipline through pay
go budgeting, raising ethical standards for lobbying, and increasing
oversight over the Bush Administration on a range of issues including
Iraq, FISA, the CIA interrogation tapes, and the Jena 6 cases.
We have also made efforts to strengthen the housing market, including
continued efforts to end discriminatory practices and stabilize the
economy. Expanding affordable housing and mortgage opportunities for
all American families is of paramount importance.

CONCLUSION

The 40th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act comes only a few weeks
after the Anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. and--oh how fitting. The things he fought for then, the principles
he gave his life for are still ideals we fight for today. We must
continue the fight to end discrimination not just

[[Page 6006]]

in the area of housing but in education, in healthcare, in politics.
Madam Speaker, I remind colleagues of the importance of the Fair
Housing Act, what it has meant to all Americans.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend my colleague
Congressman Green for sponsoring this resolution to recognize and honor
the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act, and the 20th
anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. It is important
that we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King and reflect on how
far we have come. It is equally important, as we witness tens of
thousands of Americans who risk losing their homes to foreclosure this
year, that we rededicate ourselves to standing firm for those
victimized by this economy or victimized by residual discrimination. We
must continue to encourage all people and all three levels of
government to rededicate themselves to the enforcement and the ideals
of fair housing laws.
The fair provision of housing and economic opportunity--and
especially the drive to ensure safe shelter for those in need--has been
a compelling foundation of my career in public service. As a council
member and subsequently as mayor of Alexandria, I served as vice
chairman of the Alexandria Economic Opportunity Commission when the
commission began its efforts to ensure local, State, and Federal action
to bring down the barriers in rental housing that so discriminated
against single women with children.
The enactment of the Fair Housing Act of 1988 was a testament to many
of our former colleagues in this region, including former Congresswoman
Gladys Spellman, former Senator Charles MacMathias, and former
Delegate, Reverend Walter Fauntroy. That enactment was an honor to them
and to thousands of Americans who joined in a national effort to seek
justice and enduring rights for women in that most fundamental of human
needs: shelter.
In Alexandria, our commission--and our city--focus on special
populations, such as at-risk preschool children and teens, the
homeless, ex-offenders, single parents, as well as the low-income
community in general. These populations, our most vulnerable, face
enough of an uphill struggle everyday as it is without governmentally
permitted discrimination. I am proud at what we were able to accomplish
so many years ago, but I remain committed the vision that Dr. King and
others set before us, which we honor and remember today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1095.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

RELIGIOUS WORKER VISA EXTENSION ACT OF 2008

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5570) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the sunset in the special immigrant nonminister religious
worker visa program, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5570

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 ``Religious Worker Visa
Extension Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT NONMINISTER RELIGIOUS WORKER
PROGRAM.

(a) Regulations.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue final regulations
to eliminate or reduce fraud in the special immigrant
categories described in subclauses (II) and (III) of section
101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)).
(b) Extensions.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii))
is amended by striking ``October 1, 2008,'' each place such
term appears and inserting ``January 1, 2010,''.
(2) Conditional further extension.--
(A) In general.--Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)), as amended by paragraph (1), is further
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010,'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``January 1, 2016,''.
(B) Conditional effective date.--The amendment made by
subparagraph (A) shall take effect on March 1, 2009, but only
if the Secretary of Homeland Security has complied with
subsection (a).
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2010, the
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security
shall submit to the Congress a report containing the results
of a study of the effectiveness of the regulations described
in subsection (a). The report shall also include an analysis
of a random sample of non-minister special immigrant
religious workers, before their second anniversary of being
admitted, to determine whether they are still employed by the
religious organization that petitioned for them, and if not,
the reasons for their departure from such employment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

General Leave

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Members of the House, this week we are honored by a visit from His
Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and are reminded of the good work that
people of faith do all around the world. I am pleased to bring before
the House at this time the Religious Worker Visa Extension Act of 2008.
This measure would reauthorize the Special Immigrant Non-Minister
Religious Worker Program, which also allows non-minister religious
workers to obtain special immigrant status in the United States so that
they may do the work required of their faith. If we don't act, the
program will sunset at the end of September of this year.
Non-minister religious workers are people of faith who are called to
a vocation or who are in traditional religious occupations with a bona
fide nonprofit religious organization in the United States. Examples of
those called to a vocation include nuns, monks, and sisters. Examples
of those in religious occupations include missionaries, counselors,
translators, religious instructors, cantors, and other pastoral care
providers.
The program provides up to 5,000 special immigrant visas per year
that religious denominations or organizations in the United States may
use to sponsor foreign nationals to perform religious service here.
Once granted, this type of visa allows religious workers to immigrate
permanently to the United States.
Since it was first enacted in 1990, the program has been extended
four times, most recently in 2003. Working with the ranking member of
our committee, Lamar Smith, we're making changes in the program for the
first time to address potential fraudulent uses of the program. None
other than our Immigration Subcommittee Chair, Zoe Lofgren of
California, has led the way in fashioning these proposals.
First, the bill requires that the Department of Homeland Security
issue regulations by December 31 of this year to eliminate or reduce
any fraud in the program. Then it extends authorization for only 15
months if the Department of Homeland Security fails to issue those
regulations. This would enable Congress to better consider other
possible avenues to address possible or potential fraud in the program
if that proves necessary. If the department does issue the regulations,
the authorization is extended for 6 more years, for a total of a little
over 7 years. Finally, the bill requires the Inspector General to
report on the effectiveness of the regulations by September 30, 2010.
With these significant anti-fraud provisions we have worked together
with our Republican colleagues to add, I am confident Congress will be
equipped with the information it needs to determine whether further
action to prevent fraud in the program is warranted. And if it is, we
do not hesitate to take such appropriate action.

[[Page 6007]]

So I hope that we will receive unanimous support on this bipartisan
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to address the legislation as so eloquently laid out by the
chairman of the full Judiciary Committee. And, first, I would like to
remark that I appreciate the cooperation in the negotiations that have
taken place between Ranking Member Smith and the chairman of the
Immigration Subcommittee, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, as well as Chairman Conyers.
And this is the right spirit to deal with a religious visas extension
type of a bill, and the timing of this is perfect as well for it to be
the very week that Pope Benedict XVI is arriving tomorrow morning here
in Washington, DC, and I think a lot of our activity will be suspended
while we commemorate the glorious day.
I have looked at a number of the statistics throughout this, and I
have some reservations about what has transpired with the religious
worker visas over the last several years, and I expect to take up some
of those issues a little bit later in the debate.
But as the gentleman who is more eloquent in laying out this entire
case is to my right, I would be very happy to yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King), who is the ranking member of the Immigration
Subcommittee, for yielding.
I am happy to have played a part in the creation of the Religious
Worker Immigrant Visa Program back in 1990. These visas enable American
religious denominations, large and small, to benefit from committed
religious workers from other countries.
However, I have also long been concerned about the high level of
fraud that has been evident in this visa program. Like Mr. King, I feel
regulations can only go so far in preventing fraud and we do need
additional statutory changes in the program.
The Office of Fraud Detection and National Security at the Department
of Homeland Security has conducted a Fraud Benefit Assessment. It found
that of 220 religious worker visa cases selected at random, 33 percent
had ``a finding of fraud,'' the highest of any visa program.
Fraud involves everything from bogus churches and bogus jobs to
``religious workers'' who are found driving taxis soon after they
arrive here.
So I especially appreciate the steps that the chairman of the
Immigration Subcommittee, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, has taken to
address these concerns. She agreed that we would extend the expiring
religious worker green cards for 7 years as long as the Department of
Homeland Security issues long-needed regulations to address some types
of fraud. In addition, she agreed to have the Inspector General
complete a report on the effectiveness of the anti-fraud regulations.
The Inspector General also will conduct an audit to determine to what
extent religious workers continue to work for the religious
institutions that sponsor them.
Madam Speaker, although the bill does not contain all of the
provisions I would have liked, I want to express my thanks to Ms. Zoe
Lofgren for her comity in drafting this legislation, which I support.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I recognize now the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), Chair of Immigration, without whose
inordinate leadership we would not have been able to arrive at the
accommodations and agreements that is in the bill that is now before
us, and I yield to her such time as she may consume.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank Mr. Conyers, Mr. Smith, and
Mr. King.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be the author of H.R. 5570, the
Religious Worker Visa Extension Act of 2008.
Immigrant religious workers add vitality and depth to communities of
faith throughout America. They provide much-needed help to people of
all faiths. America is a great and diverse land. Our religious
institutions, our churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, cathedrals,
face daunting challenges today. They must reach out to more people from
more countries and cultures than ever before. Religious workers serve
these communities well and ably to the benefit of their communities and
their many faiths. I have no doubt that religious communities in
America will continue to have the need to find devoted people of faith
to help them meet the needs of their members.

{time} 1330

In Jewish community schools across the country, highly skilled
religious instructors from Israel plant the fertile seeds of faith in
our children. Mormon missionaries from around the world come to the
U.S. to serve their community and deepen their faith. In Catholic
dioceses around America, nuns from around the world provide needed
community services and teach our children well. Muslim imams call their
communities together to promote their faiths and a greater
understanding of their beliefs. Protestant churches of every
denomination benefit from the touches of religious workers in their
diverse communities.
The call to faithful service in the United States will continue to
grow as this Nation becomes more diverse. Because of this growing need,
I introduced this bill. It follows my efforts in years past from the
105th and 106th Congress to permanently reauthorize the special
immigrant nonminister religious worker visa program. I called those
bills the Mother Theresa Worker Act in honor of her great service which
inspired us and benefited the world.
I believed then as I believe now, that the special immigrant
nonminister religious worker visa program represents an important and
even critical piece of our immigration laws and that it should, like
other religious worker programs, not sunset.
After four successive reauthorizations of this program in 1994, 1997,
2000 and most recently in 2003, each without a single substantive
change in the program, I again introduced a bill to permanently
reauthorize the program. However, as part of the process of putting the
bill through the regular order and subjecting it to the robust
discussion inherent in the legislative process, I offered an amendment
worked out with the minority in the subcommittee to significantly
reduce the potential for fraud in the program.
As mentioned by the chairman of the full committee, it requires DHS
to issue its regulations. It limits the reauthorization to 15 months.
If the department fails to issue regulations, it requires the Inspector
General to issue a report on the effectiveness of the regulations. And
rather than the permanent extension, as I had sought, Mr. Smith and I
worked out a compromise of 7 years of the regulations that are
authored.
Finally, after additional discussion with the minority over the last
several days, we have agreed that the Inspector General's report should
also contain an analysis of a random sample of nonminister special
immigrant cases to determine whether they are still employed by the
religious organization that petitioned for them, and if not, the
reasons for their departure from such employment. I am confident that
these steps will make the issue and concern of fraud unnecessary
because we will eliminate that problem.
I had an exit interview, if you will, with the director of the USCIS
last week. Dr. Emilio Gonzalez is going back to his family in Florida.
And he told me that with the initiation of site visits, which is
something that should have happened long ago, the actual number of
applications for this visa has dropped significantly, which is an
interesting phenomenon.
So I think that we are well underway in eliminating any problems with
the program so that our country can enjoy the richness that religious
workers bring to our communities.
I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. CONYERS. I would like now to recognize the distinguished
gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, who

[[Page 6008]]

has worked on immigration as long as anyone on our committee, and her
industry and cooperation have been very effective in bringing us
together this afternoon. And I yield her as much time as she may
consume or as much time as I have left, whichever is the longest.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. To the distinguished chairman, let me thank
you for the litany and list of achievements of human rights that you
have achieved on this floor. And I appreciate the leadership of my
subcommittee Chair, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, on many hard issues that have come
to her attention over the time of her tenure as chairperson. And as a
member of the subcommittee, I am grateful for her leadership. And
working with the minority, I thank them on this instance for the
cooperation on H.R. 5570. It is an especially unique and important
legislative initiative as we make note not only of the many religious
leaders in this Nation, but as we make note of the visit of the Aga
Khan that, who has spent time in the State of Texas and his followers
who have had the privilege of seeing him for the first time in 10 years
in the United States, someone who has funded major humanitarian efforts
around the world, and of course, the people of New York and Washington,
D.C. have the privilege of hosting the Pope in these coming weeks and
certainly in Washington.
Religion is special, and is special to this Nation. This legislation
is a special immigrant visa which allows qualified religious workers to
immigrate to the U.S. and later become citizens if they so chose and
meet the qualifications. The other is a nonimmigrant visa which allows
qualified religious workers to entry temporarily and perform services
in the U.S. for a prescribed period. It has already been noted that the
actions of these religious workers may find themselves in parishes,
mosques or synagogues, or really simply in the community, as Mother
Theresa was in India. Both of these visas may be granted to both
ministers and nonminister religious workers.
Yes, there is humanitarian work to be done in the United States. They
work in some of our most impoverished communities. And they are sincere
in their social and religious humanitarian work. The bill has come
under closer scrutiny because of the allegations of abuse and fraud
among the foreign petitioners. But I am glad that this bill will
provide for a 7-year extension of the program, and it will require DHS
to promulgate regulations to eliminate fraud.
We must work together with the Department of Homeland Security, and I
do appreciate the work of Dr. Gonzalez to impress upon them that their
task is, in fact, to secure America and that they must move quickly on
these regulations. If the regulations are not in place by December 31,
2008, to reduce fraud, the program will only be extended for 15 months
through January 1, 2010. But if DHS can get the regulations in place,
it is automatically extended to January 1, 2016.
I think this is a great start. But I ask my colleagues to consider
the expansion of this bill, one to authorize it permanently, but also
to look at a small area of which I hope to write legislation on, and
that is the insistence that the religious person coming must be of the
same religion of that which the person is petitioning for.
I had this circumstance in my district. Grace Community Church is a
church with thriving multiple ministries that wanted to bring a young
man and his family, a bilingual pastor, to speak to their Spanish
congregation and to minister to our Hispanic community in Texas. It was
a very, very tough task to address the question of the denials that he
received because he was not the same religion of Grace Community
Church. He had the same faith. He believed in a higher power. He wanted
to do missionary work. The church was legitimate. It had long years in
the community. The father of the young man had worked with the pastor
of Grace Community Church. But yet we could not get a visa except for
the gracious reconsideration of the Department of Homeland Security.
We must reduce fraud. But we can't reduce faith. And when individuals
come and want to be missionaries even in this land, we should recognize
and grant the opportunity. We can reduce fraud by making sure the
institutions exist, the time frame is a time frame that is credible,
the individuals are credible, the time that the visa is issued is
reviewed, if you will, or overseen by the Department of Homeland
Security. But actually, we should encourage those who wish to come to
this Nation for good reasons and those who come under this visa are
doing so.
So in conclusion, I do want to note that we are celebrating the
authorization of this bill this week for very special reasons. But we
are also celebrating it because we believe that those who want to do
good should be granted the opportunity. As we go forward on this
legislation, I am hoping that we will look at some of the small
fractures that keep good people from coming to the United States,
worshiping, practicing, serving and working with a great church like
Grace Community and others who may wish to bring individuals who may
not have the same religious affiliation but have the same belief in the
greater goodness and the greater power.
Let me yield back by asking my colleagues to support H.R. 5570. And I
thank my colleagues for the great work that they have done.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5570, the ``Religious
Worker Visa Program Extension Act of 2008'', introduced by the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Representative Zoe Lofgren.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The religious worker visa
program allows U.S. religious denominations to fill critical religious
worker positions for which there are no qualified candidates in the
U.S. with qualified religious workers abroad. The program provides for
two types of visas.
The one is a special immigrant visa, which allows qualified religious
workers to immigrate to the U.S. and later become citizens if they so
choose and meet the qualification. The other is the non-immigrant visa,
which allows qualified religious workers to enter temporarily and
perform services in the U.S. for a proscribed period. Both of these
visas may be granted to both ministers and non-minister religious
workers.
This bill has come under closer scrutiny recently because of
allegations of abuse and fraud among the foreign petitioners. H.R. 5570
would provide for a seven-year extension of the program and it would
require DHS to promulgate regulations to eliminate fraud. If the
Department of Homeland Security does not issue regulations to eliminate
or reduce fraud in the religious worker program by December 31, 2008,
the program is only extended for 15 months through January 1, 2010. If
the Secretary of Homeland Security issues the regulation then the
program is automatically extended until January 1, 2016.
While I support this bill, I would have liked to have this bill be
expanded so that a religious worker does not have to work for a
religious institution of the same denomination. Presently, a religious
worker must be of the same religion as the institution by which the
worker is employed. Recently this has created problems.
Pastor Riggle from Grace Community Church in my district in Houston,
Texas contacted my office concerning Dr. David Scarpeta who needed a
religious worker visa to work in his church. USCIS initially denied Dr.
Scarpeta's religious worker petition because Dr. Scarpeta was not a
member of Pastor Riggle's church.
In my view, Dr. Scarpeta should not have been excluded from the
religious worker program merely because he was not a member of the
church that was sponsoring him. This is inconsistent with religious
work as I know it in this country. Often religious workers from
different denominations and religious workers from different
denominations work together in the religious vineyard.
Because I thought the law as interpreted was draconian and far too
limited in its application, I worked tirelessly with USCIS to ensure
that Dr. Scarpeta would be able to work for Grace Community Church.
Through my efforts, I was able to get resolution of that case and now
Dr. Scarpeta is an active member of the Grace Community Church.
Madam Speaker I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
examine this bill and recognize that it benefits the religious worker
and Americans. I fully support what Representative Lofgren and the
Subcommittee on Immigration, of which I am a member, have done in the
area of immigration.

[[Page 6009]]

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that I am on record here as
supporting religious worker visas. And one of the things that was well
publicized during the Reagan administration was our ability to exchange
students and business relationships and all parts of our culture with
the rest of our world and bring people into the United States to get a
feel and for us to learn from them and for them to learn from us. And I
very much support that approach, and it has been important from the
standpoint of promoting peace throughout the world.
I find that whenever you get to know people, you find out that people
are human everywhere with the same values, the same interests and the
same ideals at our core. We have different religions sometimes, we have
different economics, different clothing, different food, different
building structures and different climates. That all comes together as
components of who we are as nations and nationalities. But inside of
us, we are all one people. And that is my belief, and it is my profound
commitment to continue to support the religious workers' visa.
Now I get to the ``or what?'' And that is that I have seen a
significant amount of fraud in these applications. And I want to point
out that where we will be welcoming Pope Benedict XVI here in
Washington, D.C., and as I look through the statistics on the Catholic
religious workers' visas, the fraud rate is very, very low as a
proportion to the overall applications. So there is no implication in
my remarks with regard to Catholics in particular, and many other
denominations from that standpoint.
But the special immigrant religious worker visa program was created
in 1990 and has been a magnet for people not only to come and share
their faith with us, but also a magnet for people to be able to utilize
the program in the system that it wasn't intended for.
The State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs in September 2005
in their Fraud Digest reported that ``religious worker visas are known
as some of the most difficult to adjudicate.'' The Fraud Digest then
goes on to discuss various cases in which people were prosecuted for
fraudulent use of the program. So, for instance, in 2004 a Venezuelan
national was convicted in Virginia of visa fraud. He had filed 179
fraudulent petitions for religious ministers. In addition to creating
fraudulent certificates of ordination, diplomas and other supporting
documentation, he also obtained a valid 501(c)(3) tax exemption from
recognized religious organizations without their knowledge.
The Immigration Subcommittee has long been aware of fraud in their
religious worker visa program. In 1997, a GAO investigation was
requested by our subcommittee. The State Department conducted a field
inquiry. They did that to get the views of consular offices as to the
level and type of fraud. And in 41 percent of the 83 responding posts,
some type of fraud or abuse was acknowledged. And the State Department
also noted that under the program's regulations, almost anyone involved
with a church, aside from the explicitly excluded occupations of
cleaning, maintenance and support staff, arguably could be qualified as
a religious worker. So this was an open door. And I recognize the
chairlady of the subcommittee acknowledged that we need to tighten that
up a bit. And that, I think, is the biggest reason why, in that
particular quote from that report.
In 1999, the GAO released a final report. The agency noted that the
types of fraud often encountered in the processing of religious worker
visas ``involved petitioners making false statements about the length
of time that the applicant was a member of the religious organization
and the nature of the qualifying work experience.''
The report went on to say that evidence uncovered at that time by INS
agents suggested that ``some of these organizations exist solely as a
means to carry out immigration fraud.'' That is what we should be
guarding against. That is what we hope to be able to do with their new
regulations that will be written as a result of the bill.
At his motion, I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Steve King, ranking member.
Am I getting from your remarks that you are implying that Protestants
commit more abuse than Catholics in this particular program?
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no good deed goes
unpunished.
I'm simply complimenting the Catholics without reference to
Protestants. However, I do have some data I could bring out perhaps a
little later in the debate.
Mr. CONYERS. Did you say yes or no?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I said, ``No good deed goes unpunished.'' I
complimented the Catholics and didn't remark with regard to the
Protestants.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for his levity in this debate
and I reclaim my time.

{time} 1345

Madam Speaker, most recently, in July of 2006, the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services Office of Fraud Detection and National
Security conducted a fraud benefit assessment on the Religious Worker
Visa program. They selected 220 cases at random and found an astounding
33 percent fraud rate. That means one out of three was fraudulent. That
is their finding.
In 32 of the fraudulent cases, the religious institution either did
not exist or only existed on paper, and 39 of their fraudulent
petitions included fraudulent supporting documentation or material
misrepresentations within a document. Other instances of fraud included
cases where the petitioner could not be located or connected to any
religious entity and where the petitioning religious entity was unaware
that the petition had even been filed and was unaware of the
beneficiary.
Now that this Nation is involved in a global war on terror, we must
be extremely vigilant, Madam Speaker. We must protect the safety and
welfare of American citizens. We can't do that with an immigration
policy that includes programs ripe with fraud.
Another example would be in 2003 Mohammed Khalil and three of his
sons were arrested in connection with submitting false applications to
bring over 200 individuals to the United States using the Religious
Worker Visa program. Prosecutors revealed that Khalil made statements
to an undercover witness professing allegiance to Osama bin Laden. He
also allegedly stated, ``Hopefully another attack in the United States
will come shortly.'' These are the kind of people that we don't need in
this program. We must be ever vigilant.
This program needed some improvements before it was ready for
reauthorization. Historically it has been reauthorized as a 5-year
reauthorization. The initial proposal was to reauthorize it to make the
program permanent. I appreciate the negotiations that have taken it
down to a 7-year reauthorization. I would have preferred it be
substantially less.
However, information that has been made available to me after such
time as we took action on the bill in the Judiciary Committee gives me
some hope that USCIS, the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, has
already taken some steps that likely would have reduced the percentage
and certainly reduced the number of fraud cases.
As I look at the verbal report from Director Emilio Gonzalez, the
2005 Religious Worker Visa applications were something slightly above
4,000 out of the 5,000 cap that is in the authorization. That was 2005.
So that would be the year by which we have seen the highest percentage
of fraud in the reports that I have seen, Madam Speaker.
In 2006, the applications, by the report language that I received, is
3,048. So we have seen these numbers going down, presumably because of
the increased scrutiny on the Religious Worker Visa applications. Then
by 2007

[[Page 6010]]

we only saw, and this is by a verbal report from the director, 454
Religious Worker Visa applications. That is a dramatic 80-some percent
reduction in the number of visa applications. I think it is safe to
conclude that a significant amount of this, Madam Speaker, is the
result of increased scrutiny on the part of USCIS.
We need to be taking a particular look still, and I intend to sit
down with Director Gonzalez and talk this through so I can get a full
understanding of the decisions they made, the timing of their decisions
and how that might have affected the Religious Worker Visa
applications.
But as I look through their report, I see a couple or three places
that we should be looking. One is the special registrant countries.
These are the countries that required extra scrutiny post-September
11th, and we know which countries those are. They are listed in the
report. That happens to be the source of, depending how you want to
evaluate the information, those countries that made those self-attested
reports show that either 70 percent, 73 percent or 80 percent were
fraudulent in the special registrant countries category.
Then the non-affiliated groups, the groups that are not affiliated
with a religious denomination, showed 63 percent fraud. That is worthy
also of significant scrutiny, and I am hopeful that this has been
addressed. And those numbers I believe also are shrinking. Then I
looked at, for example, the countries of origin. There was one county
that had 100 percent fraud of the report that was issued. That was
Jamaica.
So these are things that I think are red flags. I intend to sit down
and have this conversation with Director Gonzalez and get a better feel
for it. But that is the statistics we are dealing with today as this
bill to reauthorize and extend for 7 years Religious Worker Visas is
before this Congress.
Then I would submit also that there is something that is actually
missing in our policy. A nation that should be a nation that believes
in free trade and smart trade also should believe in free and smart
trade of our religious workers. I believe that we should have
reciprocity. For us to welcome religious workers from countries that
will disallow American religious workers from going to their countries
and particular religions that come from America to go to those
countries, I think is a great big gap in our oversight.
Recognizing the time of this legislation and the inability to offer
an amendment in a closed rule, I have drafted a bill, and I have that
bill with me today and I won't be able to introduce it unless there is
a request for unanimous consent, and I don't intend to do that, but
this bill is the Religious Worker Reciprocity Act of 2006.
What it does, it just extends reciprocal immigration treatment to
nationals of the United States who are seeking resident status in order
to work in religious vocation of other countries. In other words, it
would simply say you send your religious workers here, we want to be
able to send our religious workers there. I think that is the intent.
And I would ask for support of that across the bipartisan effort, and
particularly those that have taken particular interest in this issue.
But I will be introducing that legislation in a subsequent day.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the chairwoman of
the Immigration Subcommittee.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much
time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan controls 6
minutes and the gentleman from Iowa controls 4\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I just want to make a
couple of comments. I think it is important to note that the various
analyses of this program back in the nineties and early in this century
actually preceded reauthorization when Republicans were in the
majority. We had a reauthorization with no changes at all in 1994,
1997, 2000 and 2003. So this is the first time we have actually had
changes in the bill to address the issue of fraud, and I think is it is
appropriate we do so. We want to welcome religious workers to our
country, but we don't want to be scammed. So I think we have done the
balance on this.
I would note that I believe, as does the ranking member, that the
Catholics probably do have a low rate of fraud, but there is no way to
know that, because the sample of 220 was so small that there was no way
to pull out any one denomination as being more problematic than
another.
I would ask unanimous consent that the e-mail from the USCIS making
that point to me be included in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.

From: Patrick N. Forrest.
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008.
To: Blake Chisam.
Subject: Re religious workers.

Blake, the Religious Worker BFA (nonimmigrant) had a 32.73%
fraud rate out of a sample of 220 cases. The public version
of the BFA did not further break down the 220 cases into
religious categories. The fraud rate for Muslim organization
has been spoken of many times on the Hill for some time. The
reality is that because the population sample for Muslim
groups in the BFA is so small the rate of fraud is
statistically insignificant. I'm still waiting on the site
check data.
Patrick.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would note also that,
anecdotally, the non-affiliated may in fact be part of the issue, and
here is the problem that may have happened.
If there is no site visit to the petitioning church, you don't know
whether it is a phony post office box or whether it is St. Joseph's
Cathedral in downtown San Jose. So now that the Department of Homeland
Security has done site inspections, anybody can see the beautiful St.
Joseph's in downtown San Jose, and you can also find out there is
something funny here because there is not a real church or it is just a
post office box. And I think that is what has led to the dramatic
decline in some of these more problematic applications.
I would note also, and I look forward to talking to the ranking
member about his reciprocity bill, but let me just express a caution.
Right now, Russia will not allow our evangelicals into their country to
proselytize. I think that is the wrong thing for the Russian government
to do. I think it denies the Russian people the opportunity to be
exposed to those who believe that Christ is their personal saviour. But
I don't think we ought to deny the Russian Orthodox believers in
California the opportunity to receive assistance from Russian Orthodox
religious workers simply because the Russian government has hostility
towards religion and our government does not have hostility towards
religion.
So I look forward to discussing this further with the ranking member,
but I would want to add that cautionary.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In fact, I don't recall the unanimous consent request. Was that
responded to by the Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it was.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Okay, I didn't hear that. And I certainly don't
reserve nor do I object to that e-mail from USCIS being introduced into
the Record. In fact, I would like to read it into the Record.
It says, ``The religious worker BFA non-immigrant had a 32.73 percent
fraud rate out of a sample of 220 cases. The public version of the BFA
did not further break down the 220 cases into religious categories. The
fraud rate for Muslim organization has been spoken of many times on the
Hill for some time. The reality is that because the population sample
for Muslim groups in the BFA is so small, the rate of fraud is
statistically insignificant. I am still waiting on the site check
data.''
I believe that is the e-mail referenced by the gentlewoman from
California, and I reference it here to speak to the data that is in the
report rather than a

[[Page 6011]]

comment about the data that is in the report.
These 220 cases were drawn to give indicators for further scrutiny.
When you see a 70, 73 or 80 percent fraud rate, there is an obligation
to look into that and verify the sources of that fraud and also the
indicators that it might be greater, not less. I don't imply it is, but
we can draw just as much inference that it is greater than it is less
from these statistics.
I pointed out that Jamaica has a 100 percent fraud rate out of the
sample in this study. That doesn't mean there aren't other
denominations we shouldn't be looking at. But I am looking at each one
of these cases, and I referenced the special registrant countries that
are part of that list. The special registrant counties would be, for
the record, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, Algeria,
Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia,
Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt and Pakistan.
For the record, when I referenced then the special registrant
countries, those are the countries. This is the record. It is the data
we are dealing with. I think that it is something that we need to pay
special scrutiny to. But we should encourage the reciprocity and the
exchange of religious workers.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield back my time if
the other side has no further speakers.
Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield, I would like perhaps
30 seconds just to wrap it up.
Mr. CONYERS. Absolutely.
Madam Speaker, I return any unused time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I think this has been a very healthy
debate. It has brought issues out into the Record that are going to be
useful for us to reference. I pointed out that I do have data here that
hasn't become part of the Record and I have withheld it for some
reasons of discretion.
I look forward to reaching across the aisle and working with the
Members across the aisle to look into those concentrated areas of fraud
and work together to see if we can find a way to establish a policy of
reciprocity for religious workers, and, at the same time, celebrate the
great religions of the world and the exchange of those religions.
Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 5570, a bill which
will again reauthorize the Religious Worker Visa. The new majority
apparently thinks we need to add ``ministry'' to the list of jobs that
``Americans won't do.'' Then again, with the level of hostility the
Democrats have towards religion in America, there may come a time when
we do have to import religious workers. Fortunately, we aren't to that
point quite yet.
Regrettably, this program is far from comical. Just last year, the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service attested to the fact that this
visa had been ``compromised.'' The fraud rate is ``excessively high''
according to Emilio Gonzalez, head of USCIS. In fact, a DHS fraud-
prevention task force found that a whopping 33 percent of the visas in
this program were granted based on fraudulent information.
Even worse, rampant fraud and abuse has characterized this program,
practically since its inception in 1990. A GAO report about the program
back in 1999 found that, ``As a result of . . . fraud investigations,
both [the State Department and the INS] have expressed concern that
some individuals and organizations that sponsor religious workers may
be exploiting this category to enable unqualified aliens to enter or
stay in the United States illegally.''
Madam Speaker, some might point out that this program is not very
large in the scope of the total number of visas. But I would remind
them that we know the amount of damage a handful of determined enemies
can inflict when they are allowed to abuse our visa system.
The last thing we want to do is perpetuate a program we know is
fatally flawed, and continue a policy that just might be rolling out a
welcome mat for some of the most radical imams in the Middle East. I
urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Let's close this giant loophole in our
national security.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5570, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the special immigrant
nonminister religious worker program, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

{time} 1400
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR SECURE ELECTIONS ACT OF 2008

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5036) to direct the Administrator of
General Services to reimburse certain jurisdictions for the costs of
obtaining paper ballot voting systems for the general elections for
Federal office to be held in November 2008, to reimburse jurisdictions
for the costs incurred in conducting audits or hand counting of the
results of the general elections for Federal office to be held in
November 2008, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5036

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 ``Emergency Assistance for
Secure Elections Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS CONDUCTING 2008
GENERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) Reimbursement for Conversion to Paper Ballot Voting
System.--
(1) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall
pay to each eligible jurisdiction an amount equal to the sum
of the following:
(A) The documented reasonable costs paid or incurred by
such jurisdiction to replace any voting systems used to
conduct the general elections for Federal office held in
November 2006 that did not use or produce a paper ballot
verified by the voter or a paper ballot printout verifiable
by the voter at the time the vote is cast with paper ballot
voting systems.
(B) The documented reasonable costs paid or incurred by
such jurisdiction to obtain non-tabulating ballot marking
devices that are accessible for individuals with disabilities
in accordance with the requirements of section 301(a)(3) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
(C) The documented reasonable costs paid or incurred by
such jurisdiction to obtain ballot marking stations or voting
booths for the protection of voter privacy.
(D) The documented reasonable costs paid or incurred by
such jurisdiction to obtain paper ballots.
(E) The documented reasonable costs paid or incurred by
such jurisdiction to obtain precinct-based equipment that
tabulates paper ballots or scans paper ballots.
(F) The documented reasonable administrative costs paid or
incurred by such jurisdiction that are associated with
meeting the requirements for an eligible jurisdiction.
(2) Eligible jurisdiction defined.--In this subsection, an
``eligible jurisdiction'' means a jurisdiction that submits
to the Commission (and, in the case of a county or equivalent
jurisdiction, provides a copy to the State), at such time and
in such form as the Commission may require, an application
containing--
(A) assurances that the jurisdiction conducted regularly
scheduled general elections for Federal office in November
2006 using (in whole or in part) a voting system that did not
use or produce a paper ballot verified by the voter or a
paper ballot printout verifiable by the voter at the time the
vote is cast;
(B) assurances that the jurisdiction will conduct the
regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office to
be held in November 2008 using only paper ballot voting
systems;
(C) assurances that the jurisdiction has obtained or will
obtain a sufficient number of non-tabulating ballot marking
devices that are accessible for individuals with disabilities
in accordance with the requirements of section 301(a)(3) of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002;
(D) assurances that the jurisdiction has obtained or will
obtain a sufficient number of ballot marking stations or
voting booths for the protection of voter privacy;
(E) assurances that the jurisdiction has obtained or will
obtain a sufficient number of paper ballots;
(F) such information and assurances as the Commission may
require to make the determinations under paragraph (1); and
(G) such other information and assurances as the Commission
may require.
(3) Determinations of reasonableness of costs.--The
determinations under paragraph

[[Page 6012]]

(1) of whether costs paid or incurred by a jurisdiction are
reasonable shall be made by the Commission.
(4) Paper ballot voting system defined.--In this
subsection, a ``paper ballot voting system'' means a voting
system that uses a paper ballot marked by the voter by hand
or a paper ballot marked by the voter with the assistance of
a non-tabulating ballot marking device described in paragraph
(1)(B).
(b) Reimbursement for Retrofitting of Direct Recording
Electronic Voting Systems to Produce Voter Verifiable Paper
Records.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall pay to each eligible
jurisdiction an amount equal to the documented reasonable
costs paid or incurred by such jurisdiction to retrofit
direct recording electronic voting systems so that the
systems will produce a voter verifiable paper record of the
marked ballot for verification by the voter at the time the
vote is cast, including the costs of obtaining printers to
produce the records.
(2) Eligible jurisdiction defined.--In this subsection, an
``eligible jurisdiction'' means a jurisdiction that submits
to the Commission (and, in the case of a county or equivalent
jurisdiction, provides a copy to the State), at such time and
in such form as the Commission may require, an application
containing--
(A) assurances that the jurisdiction has obtained or will
obtain a printer for and retrofit each direct recording
electronic voting system used to conduct the general
elections for Federal office held in November 2008 so that
the system will produce a voter verifiable paper record of
the marked ballot for verification by the voter;
(B) such information and assurances as the Commission may
require to make the determinations under paragraph (1); and
(C) such other information and assurances as the Commission
may require.
(3) Determination of reasonableness of costs.--The
determinations under paragraph (1) of whether costs paid or
incurred by a jurisdiction are reasonable shall be made by
the Commission.
(c) Reimbursement for Provision of Backup Paper Ballots by
Jurisdictions Using Direct Recording Electronic Voting
Systems.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall pay to each eligible
jurisdiction an amount equal to the documented reasonable
costs paid or incurred by such jurisdiction to obtain,
deploy, and tabulate backup paper ballots (and related
supplies and equipment) that may be used in the event of the
failure of a direct recording electronic voting system in the
regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office to
be held in November 2008.
(2) Eligible jurisdiction defined.--In this subsection, an
``eligible jurisdiction'' means a jurisdiction that submits
to the Commission (and, in the case of a county or equivalent
jurisdiction, provides a copy to the State), at such time and
in such form as the Commission may require, an application
containing--
(A) assurances that the jurisdiction will post, in a
conspicuous manner at all polling places at which a direct
recording electronic voting system will be used in such
elections, a notice stating that backup paper ballots are
available at the polling place and that a voter is entitled
to use such a ballot upon the failure of a voting system;
(B) assurances that the jurisdiction counts each such
backup paper ballot cast by a voter as a regular ballot cast
in the election, and does not treat it (for eligibility
purposes) as a provisional ballot under section 302(a) of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002, unless the individual casting
the ballot would have otherwise been required to cast a
provisional ballot;
(C) such information and assurances as the Commission may
require to make the determinations under paragraph (1); and
(D) such other information and assurances as the Commission
may require.
(3) Determination of reasonableness of costs.--The
determinations under paragraph (1) of whether costs paid or
incurred by a jurisdiction are reasonable shall be made by
the Commission.
(d) Amounts.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Commission such sums as may be necessary for payments
under this section. Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization under this subsection shall remain available
until expended.

SEC. 3. PAYMENTS FOR CONDUCTING MANUAL AUDITS OF RESULTS OF
2008 GENERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) Payments.--
(1) Eligibility for payments.--If a State conducts manual
audits of the results of any of the regularly scheduled
general elections for Federal office in November 2008 (and,
at the option of the State, conducts audits of elections for
State and local office held at the same time as such
election) in accordance with the requirements of this
section, the Commission shall make a payment to the State in
an amount equal to the documented reasonable costs incurred
by the State in conducting the audits.
(2) Certification of compliance and costs.--
(A) Certification required.--In order to receive a payment
under this section, a State shall submit to the Commission,
in such form as the Commission may require, a statement
containing--
(i) a certification that the State conducted the audits in
accordance with all of the requirements of this section;
(ii) a statement of the reasonable costs incurred in
conducting the audits; and
(iii) such other information and assurances as the
Commission may require.
(B) Amount of payment.--The amount of a payment made to a
State under this section shall be equal to the reasonable
costs incurred in conducting the audits.
(C) Determination of reasonableness of costs.--The
determinations under this paragraph of whether costs incurred
by a State are reasonable shall be made by the Commission.
(3) Timing of payments.--The Commission shall make the
payment required under this section to a State not later than
30 days after receiving the statement submitted by the State
under paragraph (2).
(4) Mandatory immediate reimbursement of counties and other
jurisdictions.--If a county or other jurisdiction responsible
for the administration of an election in a State incurs costs
as the result of the State conducting an audit of the
election in accordance with this section, the State shall
reimburse the county or jurisdiction for such costs
immediately upon receiving the payment from the Commission
under paragraph (3).
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as may be
necessary for payments under this section. Any amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization under this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
(b) Audit Requirements.--In order to receive a payment
under this section for conducting an audit, the State shall
meet the following minimum requirements:
(1) Not later than 30 days before the date of the regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office in November
2008, the State shall establish and publish guidelines,
standards, and procedures to be used in conducting audits in
accordance with this section.
(2) The State shall select an appropriate entity to oversee
the administration of the audit, in accordance with such
criteria as the State considers appropriate consistent with
the requirements of this section, except that the entity must
meet a general standard of independence as defined by the
State.
(3) The State shall determine whether the units in which
the audit will be conducted will be precincts or some
alternative auditing unit, and shall apply that determination
in a uniform manner for all audits conducted in accordance
with this section.
(4) The State shall select the precincts or alternative
auditing units in which audits are conducted in accordance
with this section in a random manner following the election
after the final unofficial vote count (as defined by the
State) has been announced, such that each precinct or
alternative auditing unit in which the election was held has
an equal chance of being selected, subject to paragraph (9),
except that the State shall ensure that at least one precinct
or alternative auditing unit is selected in each county in
which the election is held.
(5) The audit shall be conducted in not less than 2 percent
of the precincts or alternative auditing units in the State
(in the case of a general election for the office of Senator)
or the Congressional district involved (in the case of an
election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to, the Congress).
(6) The State shall determine the stage of the tabulation
process at which the audit will be conducted, and shall apply
that determination in a uniform manner for all audits
conducted in accordance with this section, except that the
audit shall commence within 48 hours after the State or
jurisdiction involved announces the final unofficial vote
count (as defined by the State) in each precinct in which
votes are cast in the election which is the subject of the
audit.
(7) With respect to each precinct or alternative audit unit
audited, the State shall ensure that a voter verified paper
ballot or paper ballot printout verifiable by the voter at
the time the vote is cast is available for every vote cast in
the precinct or alternative audit unit, and that the tally
produced by counting all of those paper ballots or paper
ballot printouts by hand is compared with the corresponding
final unofficial vote count (as defined by the State)
announced with respect to that precinct or audit unit in the
election.
(8) Within each precinct or alternative audit unit, the
audit shall include all ballots cast by all individuals who
voted in or who are under the jurisdiction of the precinct or
alternative audit unit with respect to the election,
including absentee ballots (subject to paragraph (9)), early
ballots, emergency ballots, and provisional ballots, without
regard to the time, place, or manner in which the ballots
were cast.
(9) If a State establishes a separate precinct for purposes
of counting the absentee ballots cast in the election and
treats all absentee ballots as having been cast in that

[[Page 6013]]

precinct, and if the state does not make absentee ballots
sortable by precinct and include those ballots in the hand
count described in paragraph (7) which is administered with
respect to that precinct, the State may divide absentee
ballots into audit units approximately equal in size to the
average precinct in the State in terms of the number of
ballots cast, and shall randomly select and include at least
2 percent of those audit units in the audit. Any audit
carried out with respect to such an audit unit shall meet the
same standards applicable under paragraph (7) to audits
carried out with respect to other precincts and alternative
audit units, including the requirement that all paper ballots
be counted by hand.
(10) The audit shall be conducted in a public and
transparent manner, such that members of the public are able
to observe the entire process.
(c) Collection and Submission of Audit Results;
Publication.--
(1) State submission of report.--In order to receive a
payment under this section, a State shall submit to the
Commission a report, in such form as the Commission may
require, on the results of each audit conducted under this
section.
(2) Commission action.--The Commission may request
additional information from a State based on the report
submitted under paragraph (1).
(3) Publication.--The Commission shall publish each report
submitted under paragraph (1) upon receipt.
(d) Delay in Certification of Results by State.--No State
may certify the results of any election which is subject to
an audit under this section prior to completing the audit,
resolving discrepancies discovered in the audit, and
submitting the report required under subsection (c).

SEC. 4. PAYMENTS FOR CONDUCTING HAND COUNTS OF RESULTS OF
2008 GENERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) Payments.--
(1) Eligibility for payments.--If a State, county, or
equivalent location tallies the results of any regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office in November
2008 by conducting a hand count of the votes cast on the
paper ballots used in the election (including paper ballot
printouts verifiable by the voter at the time the vote is
cast) in accordance with the requirements of this section,
the Commission shall make a payment to the State, county, or
equivalent location in an amount equal to the documented
reasonable costs incurred by the State, county, or equivalent
location in conducting the hand counts.
(2) Certification of compliance and costs.--
(A) Certification required.--In order to receive a payment
under this section, a State, county, or equivalent location
shall submit to the Commission (and, in the case of a county
or equivalent jurisdiction, shall provide a copy to the
State), in such form as the Commission may require, a
statement containing--
(i) a certification that the State, county, or equivalent
location conducted the hand counts in accordance with all of
the requirements of this section;
(ii) a statement of the reasonable costs incurred by the
State, county, or equivalent location in conducting the hand
counts; and
(iii) such other information and assurances as the
Commission may require.
(B) Amount of payment.--The amount of a payment made to a
State, county, or equivalent location under this section
shall be equal to the reasonable costs incurred by the State,
county, or equivalent location in conducting the hand counts.
(C) Determination of reasonableness of costs.--The
determinations under this paragraph of whether costs incurred
by a State, county, or equivalent location are reasonable
shall be made by the Commission.
(3) Timing of payments.--The Commission shall make the
payment required under this section to a State, county, or
equivalent location not later than 30 days after receiving
the statement submitted by the State, county, or equivalent
location under paragraph (2).
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as may be
necessary for payments under this section. Any amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization under this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
(b) Hand Counts Described.--
(1) In general.--A hand count conducted in accordance with
this section is a count of all of the paper ballots on which
votes were cast in the election (including paper ballot
printouts verifiable by the voter at the time the vote is
cast), including votes cast on an early, absentee, emergency,
and provisional basis, which is conducted by hand to
determine the winner of the election and is conducted without
using electronic equipment or software.
(2) Completeness.--With respect to each jurisdiction in
which a hand count is conducted, the State, county, or
equivalent location shall ensure that a voter verified paper
ballot or paper ballot printout verifiable by the voter at
the time the vote is cast is available for every vote cast in
the jurisdiction.
(c) Process for Conducting Hand Counts.--
(1) In general.--In order to meet the requirements of this
section, a hand count of the ballots cast in an election
shall be conducted in accordance with the following
procedures:
(A) After the closing of the polls on the date of the
election, the appropriate election official shall secure the
ballots at the polling place (or, in the case of ballots cast
at any other location, at the office of the chief election
official of the jurisdiction conducting the hand count).
(B) Beginning at any time after the expiration of the 8-
hour period that begins at the time the polls close on the
date of the election, the jurisdiction shall conduct an
initial hand count of the ballots cast in the election, using
the ballots which are eligible to be counted in the election
as of the time the polls are closed.
(C) Any ballot which is eligible to be counted in the
election but which is not included in the initial count
conducted under subparagraph (B), including a provisional
ballot cast by an individual who is determined to be eligible
to vote in the election or an absentee ballot received after
the date of the election but prior to the applicable deadline
under State law for the receipt of absentee ballots, shall be
subject to a hand count in accordance with this section and
added to the tally conducted under subparagraph (B) not later
than 48 hours after the ballot is determined to be eligible
to be counted.
(D) The hand count shall be conducted by a team of not
fewer than 2 individuals who shall be witnessed by at least
one observer sitting at the same table with such individuals.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), all such individuals
shall be election officials of the jurisdiction in which the
hand count is conducted. The number of such individuals who
are members of the political party whose candidates received
the greatest number of the aggregate votes cast in the
regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office held
in the State in November 2006 shall be equal to the number of
such individuals who are members of the political party whose
candidates received the second greatest number of the
aggregate votes cast in the regularly scheduled general
elections for Federal office held in the State in November
2006.
(E) After the completion of the hand count, the ballots may
be run through a tabulating machine or scanner for comparison
with the tally, if such a machine or scanner is available.
(2) Use of other personnel.--An individual who is not an
election official of the jurisdiction in which a hand count
is conducted under this section may serve on a team
conducting the hand count or may serve as an observer of a
team conducting the hand count if the jurisdiction certifies
that the individual has completed such training as the
jurisdiction deems appropriate to conduct or observe the hand
count (as the case may be).
(3) Location.--The hand counts conducted under this section
of the ballots cast in an election shall be conducted--
(A) in the case of ballots cast at a polling place on the
date of the election, at the polling place at which the
ballots were cast; or
(B) in the case of any other ballots, at the office of the
chief election official of the jurisdiction conducting the
hand count.
(4) Information included in results.--Each hand count
conducted under this section shall produce the following
information with respect to the election:
(A) The vote tally for each candidate.
(B) The number of overvotes, undervotes, spoiled ballots,
and blank ballots cast (or their equivalents, as defined by
the State, county or equivalent location).
(C) The number of write-in ballots and the names written in
on such ballots pursuant to State law.
(D) The total number of ballots cast.
(E) A record of judgement calls made regarding voter
intent.
(5) Public observation of hand counts.--Each hand count
conducted under this section shall be conducted in a manner
that allows public observation of the entire process
(including the opening of the ballot boxes or removal of
machine-printed ballots from their containers, the sorting,
counting, and notation of results, and the announcement of
final determinations) sufficient to confirm but not interfere
with the proceedings.
(6) Establishment and publication of procedures.--Prior to
the date of the regularly scheduled general election for
Federal office held in November 2008, a State, county, or
equivalent location shall establish and publish procedures
for carrying out hand counts under this subsection.
(d) Application to Jurisdictions Conducting Elections With
Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems.--
(1) Requiring systems to produce voter verifiable paper
record.--If a State, county, or equivalent location uses a
direct recording electronic voting system to conduct an
election, the State, county, or equivalent location may not
receive a payment under this section for conducting a hand
count of

[[Page 6014]]

the votes cast in the election unless (in addition to meeting
the other requirements applicable under this section) the
State, county, or equivalent location certifies to the
Commission that each such system produces a paper record
printout of the marked ballot which is verifiable by the
voter at the time the vote is cast.
(2) Treatment of paper record printouts.--In applying this
section to a hand count conducted by a State, county, or
equivalent location which provides a certification to the
Commission under paragraph (1), the paper record printout
referred to in such paragraph shall be treated as the paper
ballot used in the election.
(e) Announcement and Posting of Results.--Upon the
completion of a hand count conducted under this section, the
State, county, or equivalent location shall announce the
results to the public and post them on a public Internet
site.
(f) Use of Hand Count in Certification of Results.--The
State shall use the results of the hand count conducted under
this section for purposes of certifying the results of the
election involved. Nothing in this section may be construed
to affect the application or operation of any State law
governing the recount of the results of an election.

SEC. 5. STUDY, DEVELOPMENT OF TESTING METHODS, AND
ACCELERATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTS AND
STANDARDS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY OF PAPER
BALLOT VERIFICATION AND CASTING FOR CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS.

(a) Study, Testing, and Development.--In accordance with
OMB Circular A-119, the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (hereafter in this section referred
to as the ``Director'') shall study, develop testing methods,
and accelerate the development of products and standards that
ensure the accessibility of paper ballot verification and
casting for individuals with disabilities, for voters whose
primary language is not English, and for voters with
difficulties in literacy, including the mechanisms themselves
and the processes through which the mechanisms are used. In
carrying out this subsection, the Director shall investigate
existing and potential methods or systems, including non-
electronic systems, that will assist such individuals and
voters in creating voter verified paper ballots, presenting
or transmitting the information printed or marked on such
ballots back to such individuals and voters in an accessible
form, and enabling the voters to cast the ballots.
(b) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2009, the Director
shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the
studying, development of testing methods, and acceleration of
the development of products and standards under subsection
(a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Director such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this section, to remain available
until expended.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the term ``Commission'' means the Election Assistance
Commission; and
(2) the term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and
the United States Virgin Islands.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

General Leave

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 5036 and to include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5036, the Emergency
Assistance for Secure Elections Act 2008, is a bill that provides State
and local governments the opportunity to have safe, secure and
auditable elections in this, the election, year.
I commend Congressman Holt and his bipartisan cosponsors for their
continued dedication to the issue of election reform.
This bill recognizes that 2008 is quickly approaching and options
must be provided to ensure the integrity of the vote. Our election
process must be open and transparent to ensure public confidence. We
are now 8 months from the general election and cannot place State and
local governments in a position to require change. Therefore, the bill
is 100 percent optional.
State and local governments can choose which provisions they can
successfully implement. Opting in entitles the State or jurisdiction to
reimbursement. In committee, several changes were made to this bill
through bipartisan cooperation, and I want to thank Mr. Ehlers for his
support during the committee markup. Changes were also made to meet the
concerns of disability groups, as well as State and local government.
H.R. 5036, as amended, reimburses jurisdictions for retrofitting
paperless touch-screen voting machines, or DREs, with systems that
produce a voter verifiable paper record, allows for reimbursements for
jurisdictions to obtain backup paper ballots in the event of failure of
electronic voting systems and authorizes reimbursement for
jurisdictions which conduct a manual audit of a Federal and any State
and local election in November, 2008, in no less than 2 percent of the
precincts.
During the markup, all the amendments offered by the Republicans were
accepted by voice vote, and those four amendments were to allow for
audits to commence within 48 hours after States or relevant
jurisdictions involved announced the unofficial vote count. It requires
no hand count to commence until at least 8 hours after the polls close
and requires the ballots to be in a secured location until the hand
count commences, and ensures that the hand-counting teams, when
conducting a hand count of the election results, have equal
representation from both political parties of the candidates who
received the two greatest numbers of aggregate votes cast, and requires
that after the hand count is complete the ballots be run through a
tabulating machine or scanner for verification of the tally, if such a
machine or scanner is available.
Having a voter verified paper trail with an automatic routine audit
will go a long way to increase voter confidence and deter fraud.
Post-election audits are an essential tool to increase voter
confidence in the election process. While the bill authorizes such sums
as necessary, the CBO has come back to us with a score of $685 million,
about what we expected, and a sum that was in the original Holt bill.
The CBO score, however, anticipates the participation of everyone in
this bill. I think it is highly unlikely that every jurisdiction will
participate in every aspect of the bill, since they have the
opportunity to do nothing or to pick and choose portions of the bill.
It is clear that the actual score or total would be less.
I would note that we are spending over $10 billion a month in Iraq
and that we have spent a total of $1.32 billion on democracy-building
programs in Afghanistan and Iraq. The CBO figure is certainly less than
that. It seems to me, if we can't protect our elections at home,
really, how are we supposed to be a model of democracy without safe and
secure and auditable elections.
The country could end up revisiting the contentious and mistrusted
count of 2000 and, even more recently, in the contested election of
District 13 where people could not verify votes through an actual
written ballot.
The bill reported out of committee makes the changes requested by the
minority to the legislation but keeps the core purpose of the bill,
providing a voter verifiable paper and auditable paper trail.
If this bill is enacted promptly, jurisdiction should have adequate
time to purchase and implement the voting system upgrades and the other
provisions of this bill and provide voter confidence in the integrity
of the 2008 election.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this option bill, this
bipartisan effort.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss this bill and, first of all, to
commend Mr. Holt for his efforts and his concerns.
He is sincerely and extremely concerned about accuracy in voting, and
what can be done to make certain that the results are accurate. He
expressed that in his first bill, H.R. 811, which did not receive
committee consideration.
I spent considerable time with him trying to work out the details of
that

[[Page 6015]]

bill, but we simply could not reach agreement or even come close to
agreement.
I commend Mr. Holt again for his concern and his persistence, as he
authored H.R. 5036. When I reviewed it with him I thought this might be
a much better basis for agreement and, that by working together, we
might be able to achieve that.
Unfortunately, we have not achieved full agreement on it, although we
did get it out of committee. I supported it out of committee because I
thought it should reach the floor for floor debate. I anticipated that
it would be taken up under a rule where we might have the possibility
for an additional compromise, but that has not happened.
There are a number of issues that still remain. I agree with Mr. Holt
that we should have some type of redundancy in our recording systems. I
disagree that it has to be paper. I think there are other methods of
achieving redundancy.
Recently we had an exposition in the House Administration Committee
room where we had demonstrations of equipment which shows redundancy in
an electronic fashion, and I think would be fully as reliable as
redundancy in paper.
Another area where we disagree is in the hand counting of ballots. I
have enough experience with elections in local politics to recognize
that hand counting is not as accurate as almost any machine counting
that I have seen.
There are ways of achieving what Mr. Holt wishes. I think the
optical-scan method is certainly a valid one, and that is what the
State of Michigan uses. Other States are beginning to go use that.
But the final blow to our efforts was the judgment of the CBO that it
was $685 million for 1 year. I realize that Mr. Holt had estimated that
would be the cost in his original bill. In fact he had included it as
an authorization in his original bill.
But having the CBO report that large sum that casts a pall over this
particular bill in respect to the opinions of the Members of this body,
and I am afraid that is likely to be the death knell.
In summary, I certainly commend Mr. Holt for his concerns. I commend
him for his efforts. I just don't think we have achieved enough
agreement to effectively make this a bipartisan bill. Therefore, I
suspect it will not pass, and I will have great difficulty supporting
it at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize
the author of the bill, Congressman Rush Holt from New Jersey, who has
been tremendously diligent in pursuing these reform measures. Really,
without his persistence, we would not be here today.
I would recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Emergency
Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008.
This is a bill that is optional for counties. It's to encourage
counties and States to do the right thing. We should all want national
standards of accessibility, reliability and auditability for our
elections. This is an emergency stop-gap measure to see that we achieve
as much of that as possible before the November elections.
The principle is simple. Anything of value should be auditable. Votes
are valuable. They should be audited so that voters can have the
confidence that each vote is recorded the way the voter intended. In
too many places around the United States, votes are not audited.
In too many places around the United States, they are not even
auditable. Voters leave the polling places wondering if their vote will
be counted as they intended and election losers and their supporters
are left wondering if they can believe the results.
Already in this primary season, there have been numerous, numerous
problems, questions, and unresolved disputes.
In county after county, in State after State, electronic voting
systems have failed in many ways, failure to start-up in the morning, a
mismatch between the electronic count and the end-of-day printout,
failed memory cards, and on and on and on. In too many places, the
irregularities can not be resolved. There is no way to resolve them.
There is no way to know because there is no record of the voter's
intentions.
This legislation would reimburse counties and States for allowing
voters to inspect paper-based records of their vote, in other words,
paper ballots. That would not only make it possible for audits, but
this legislation would go further and reward States for putting in
place procedures to conduct those audits. This would go a long way
toward restoring confidence in the process.
There is still time before November to secure our election system. If
our Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act is enacted,
localities could choose to convert to paper ballot voting systems,
offer emergency paper ballots if machines fail, and to conduct audits
to confirm the accuracy of the electronic tallies.
I want to stress that this is optional. We took great pains to accept
the suggestions of the minority party, to take suggestions of election
officials, to take suggestions of people all over the country, lawyers
and others who have looked at elections in detail. We simplified this
so that counties could not object that we were making them do something
that we weren't going to support them on. This is optional. We have
simplified it as much as possible so that it could be implemented in
time for this year's election, and it could be.

{time} 1415

This modest bill simply entitles jurisdictions to reimbursement for
the costs to conduct fully auditable, fully audited elections. It will
encourage States and counties that want to do the right thing on behalf
of their voters. But time is of the essence.
If we don't take action immediately, we will not leave enough time
for States that wish to opt to do so before the November election.
Voters will lose further confidence in the system, and candidates will
leave on election night wondering if they can trust the results.
Common Cause wrote: ``The security and reliability problems with
electronic machines have been well documented. Both the State of
California with the Top to Bottom Review and the State of Ohio with
their study have documented numerous security vulnerabilities and have
systems and have taken action to protect voters. Additionally, a number
of academic and public policy experts have recommended that the
shortcomings of these systems be addressed. Finally, there have been a
number of incidents in which voters have been disenfranchised and
election outcomes thrown into doubt because the machines have simply
failed to work properly.''
The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of
Law writes: ``Reports of machine problems during States' recent
Presidential primary elections provide a preview of potentially
widespread machine failure and disenfranchisement in November.''
They and others go on to argue that this simple, straightforward
legislation will allow many counties and States around the country to
address these problems in time for their November election so that we
can have a truly reliable, accessible and auditable election that
voters can believe in.
I yield back the balance of my time with thanks to the gentlelady
from California for her diligent work in putting together such a good
piece of legislation.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5036.
CBO estimates that this bill will cost the taxpayers $685 million to
reimburse jurisdictions for the cost of converting to voting systems
that produce paper ballots, manual audits and hand recounts. We have
already provided the States with $3.2 billion in grants to implement
the Help America Vote Act,

[[Page 6016]]

including $115 million appropriated in fiscal year 2008.
The administration of elections is a State and local responsibility.
Many jurisdictions have already decided to change their election
systems to require paper ballots using their own resources. This bill
would encourage other jurisdictions to rush the implementation of new
paper ballot systems for the November election.
In written testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee, the
bipartisan Election Assistance Commission stated: ``Experience has
taught election officials that a minimum of 6 to 8 months, and
preferably longer, is needed to effectively implement a new voting
system and to educate the voting public about how to use the system.
Consistency in procedures and process is key in creating a secure,
accurate and effective election. As we have seen in Ohio and in several
other jurisdictions, the hasty attaching of a printer to some machines
has led to paper jams, long lines, and confusion. While jurisdictions
may find a voter verified paper audit trail to be suitable for their
needs, hastily requiring such a thing for this year's election has the
potential to lead to more problems than it can possibly solve. At this
point in the election cycle, election officials are better served by
sharpening their already existing policies than trying to apply
patchwork fixes that could lead to greater problems.''
That was from the Election Assistance Commission which is a
bipartisan group.
I would add, this bill will not only put the country further in debt,
but would encourage jurisdictions to implement new voting systems
between the primaries and general election, leading to additional
election problems.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislative proposal.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Davis of Virginia is
a principal cosponsor and I don't see him here, so I will yield to Mr.
Holt for 1 minute.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady. I just wanted to address a couple
of the points that the gentleman from Ohio made.
The first is we don't in this legislation tell the counties how to
run their elections. We leave this up to them, and it is entirely
optional. There are States around the country who have instituted
complete auditable election systems in a matter of months.
If a county or a State feels they cannot do it, then I would advise
them not to opt in to this program. But we believe they can. Let's
leave that to them rather than as the gentleman from Ohio would, try to
decide for them whether this is something that they would want.
We believe from a number of indications that this will be useful in
many counties and States around the country.
Mr. EHLERS. I yield 4 minutes to the Republican whip, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I come to the floor
to talk about this bill with real appreciation for the hard work that
the gentleman from New Jersey has put into this effort. I know it is a
heartfelt effort on his part.
In fact, I first met his mother when we were both serving as the
Secretaries of State of respective States, West Virginia and Missouri,
at the time. I just come here to say that the States have handled the
responsibility of the mechanics of election administration well for a
very long time.
The process of voting, how you vote, the mechanics of what the ballot
looks like, whether you have a straight ballot voting system, all that
has been left to the States, and I think wisely so.
In the Help America Vote Act, the Congress provided States with over
$3 billion to modernize their voting systems, including allowing the
States to decide whether they wanted to have a paper backup. In my
State, the State of Missouri, the Secretary of State determined if that
money was used, there would be no system authorized in our State unless
the paper backup was part of that system. As it turned out, that was a
very good decision.
But in the aftermath of the 2000 elections, many States took that
incentive, that $3 billion that was out there, and in my view made
decisions more quickly than they otherwise would have.
This bill now offers a second round of money that would be available
to encourage changing their systems, many of them that we know about
today changing their system from a system they just used Federal money
to change to. I think this is neither wise nor the responsible thing
for us to do.
I also very much think that there is no reason to rush this bill at
this time. There is not enough time left between now and the November
election to change voting systems. Over 30 States have already
conducted primary elections with the system they will use in November.
The very worst time to change a voting system is an election that has
overwhelming participation, as we believe this one will.
Election administration and the mechanics of election grew up in this
country over decades and generations of voting and voting habits. To
try to change those voting habits from a primary election some time
earlier in the year to a new system, to be frankly tested the first
time in probably the biggest election turnout that we have had or will
have in a long time, is just a mistake.
To think that we should pass this bill today for the November
election, I think, is as far off base as we could be. I am not
absolutely opposed to the Federal Government encouraging States to do
better with their election process; I am opposed to this feeling that
we get into that creates an environment where the States have to make
these decisions more quickly than they should, and particularly to make
a decision like this just in advance of a high-participation election.
I don't think the $3.2 billion so-called solution produced the right
results. In fact, several States are now complaining that it produced
problems. But they are the ones that decided that they would deal with
those problems. Those problems, frankly, become less significant every
time voters use a system. Maybe you made an investment that you wished
you didn't make, but you made that investment. It is not impossible to
either reverse it on your own or decide you are going to make it work.
I think this is the wrong approach at the wrong time. I encourage my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill today, not to give up in working
with our friend from New Jersey to find a bill that would be helpful to
the States, but not to pass a bill today that would only create with
certainty more problems in November than we will have without it.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it
clear that the Holt bill is optional for jurisdictions. No one is
required to opt in, so no one would be rushed unless they wanted and
felt they could take advantage of this legislation. I would note also
that several States have undergone very rapid conversion. I would note
that Governor Crist from Florida was a witness before the Election
Subcommittee in House Administration, and he had the entire State of
Florida switch from the electronic machines to optical scan in really a
matter of months. This is a matter of intention if you want to do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
for yielding, and I appreciate the privilege to address you here on the
floor of the House with regard to integrity in the ballot system.
I will say as a compliment to Mr. Holt, he and I have had a number of
conversations about integrity in the electoral process. We share
concern that the electoral process here in America have the highest
level of integrity. I, for one, actually sat in my chair for all but a
couple of 37 days following the election of the year 2000 watching
television, scooting around and surfing the Internet, chasing down the
rabbit trails. I was on the telephone. At the time I was the chairman

[[Page 6017]]

of the Senate State Government Committee in Iowa, and I didn't want
Iowa to become a Florida.
As I educated myself, it was a crash course in the electoral process.
I found fraud in elections in a number of States, at least solid
newspaper and journalistic reports of fraud, and I became convinced
that it was scattered throughout this country. And the pattern is hard
to follow, but the conclusion I drew was if this country ever loses its
faith in our electoral system, this constitutional republic will
collapse due to a lack of faith of the people.
So integrity in the electoral process is important. I would rather
lose an election than lose the integrity of the electoral process.
I come to this floor today to oppose this bill, however, because this
is Tax Day, 2008, election year 2008, and we are watching the
Presidential debates unfold and soon we will hear the congressional
debates light up. To try to jump on this horse in the middle of this
fast current of stream that we have racing toward an election, I think
is a bridge too far for us to be able to get there without further
damaging the integrity, rather than improving it.

{time} 1430

I would urge this House to step back, take a look, take a deep
breath, and come together with some legislation that would provide, of
course, for a paper audit trail, which I support, but one that does so
in a reasoned fashion, not in the middle of an election year, not
something that's designed to patch some of the flaws that came with the
Help America Vote Act, but something that's well thought out, something
that's bipartisan, something that's reasoned, something that's
cautious, and something that will preserve the integrity of the
electoral system that we have. And that's why I come to the floor, Mr.
Speaker, for that purpose.
And I support the position taken by the ranking member from Michigan
and my colleagues, although I intend to continue to work with Mr. Holt.
Another point that I would make is that we do have a disagreement in
our viewpoint, and that is that I think we should, at the very last
resort, impose obligations on the States. The States have run this
electoral process. The Federal Government has a minimal involvement.
And so my view is, if the States have integrity, we have to be very
careful because the voters within the States will be determining the
next leader in the free world. I think the number was just 527 votes in
Florida made the difference on who the leader of the free world was in
the year 2000. That integrity is important. We must hold it together.
But I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill at this time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note
that this has not been a hurried effort. In fact, we reported out of
the House Administration Committee the original Holt bill before last
Easter, Easter of 2007, and have been working with interested parties
and across the aisle since that time.
It's worth noting that these changes can happen responsibly and also
quickly. For example, in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, they're going
to switch from DREs to optical scan in 7 weeks, before this primary.
And I would note that the legislature in Iowa has voted, I understand
the vote was nearly unanimous, to transition from DREs to optical scan,
and that's going to be done before this November election. So I think
that this measure would help cities and counties who want to take those
responsible steps.
I would yield to the author of the legislation, Mr. Holt, an
additional minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from
Michigan has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California
has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, the States and
counties still have the responsibility for the mechanics of the
elections. All we're saying is, if they put in place procedures to make
them auditable, and procedures to audit the votes, we will assist them
in the cost.
There are many things the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said we
could be dealing with, and, indeed, we are not dealing with questions
of registration and purging of names on registration lists and absentee
voting and the openness of the tabulation phase of results. We are just
talking about what happens in the voting booth, so that each voter will
be able to verify, on paper, that her vote or his vote is recorded the
way they intended, and then, those voter verified records be used to
audit the results. It's that simple.
I can promise you that if jurisdictions don't take these steps, there
will be many questions around the country that cannot be resolved. This
is a simple, straightforward way to take care of it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida, who has considerable voting
experience, Mr. Mica.
Mr. MICA. I want to thank Ranking Member Ehlers and others for
working on this bill.
I join in opposition to the legislation. First of all, let me say, my
colleagues, there's nothing more important than the integrity of the
election process in the United States and confidence that all Americans
would have in making certain our system of election is secure.
But let me tell you, folks, this is compounding error and mistake
Congress made, and here it is on Tax Day, 2008, that we're going to
commit another two-thirds of a billion dollar mistake.
I sat on House Administration that oversees elections. I was there in
2000 when we had the problems in Florida with the hanging chads. We've
all heard of the hanging chads. And everybody rushed here, and every
vote's got to count; we've got to spend taxpayer dollars and make sure
that every vote is counted; and we're going to put in a system, and we
have to make it look like we're doing something to make certain that
system's secure.
Now, we listened to the witnesses and they came before House
Administration and they told folks that an electronic voting system,
which would cost billions of dollars to implement, would have the
possibility of error and just about the same percentage of error if you
choose a lever, if you use a hanging chad ballot, if you use optical
scan, if you use a paper ballot. And you can mess up any of those
elections.
They told us. And then everybody rushed down. They voted it out of
committee. We passed it. We spent $2 billion or $3 billion to put in
place a system that they told us, well, somebody can pull the plug, the
electronic thing doesn't work. Duh. Somebody can come up with some sort
of electronic device. Even one of these might set it off and you might
get some results.
They told us there might be errors, and they told us they didn't have
a paper trail. Duh.
So here we are putting in place the system. On Tax Day, spend another
two-thirds of a billion dollars. Keep working out there, Americans.
Send it here because they'll spend it in some dumb fashion, and this
follows that.
Now, we do want the system to work, but there are errors in
everything. You heard them talking about the scan.
I went down and sat all night and watched the scan voting. It's
simple. You just take a pen and you fill in the space. My God, I
couldn't believe, hundreds of people, they put X's all the way around,
they circled optical scan. They could screw up any kind of a ballot. A
paper ballot. Actually I'm told that the old levers are probably the
best, that we took out for $2 billion or $3 billion worth of hard-
earned taxpayer dollars and replaced with these electronic machines
which now we're coming to correct. But they still have the same rate of
error.
I guess it never stops around here. But here we are again spending
that money on another whim. But we'll do it.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a
couple of comments. In the last several years,

[[Page 6018]]

the United States has spent at least $240 million to make sure that
democratic elections in other countries met the same standards that
we're hoping elections will be held to here. And so, obviously, every
dollar that we have is precious tax money, but I would hope that we
would be at least as interested in protecting the integrity of the
elections in America as we are in protecting the integrity of the
elections in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the like.
Secondly, I was not a member of the House Administration Committee
when Mr. Mica, the gentleman from Florida, was. But I was on the
Florida 13 Task Force, and we reached a conclusion. It was unanimous
and it was bipartisan, and I don't second-guess them. We had GAO go in
and they gave us a report, and we accepted that report. But had there
been a paper trail we wouldn't have had to have the GAO go in and
examine these machines.
And I would finally note that the gentleman is right. If you can mess
it up, it will be messed up. But at least, with a paper ballot, you can
discern intent. And if somebody circles the name instead of fills it
in, and there is a recount, you can see what a voter meant to do. You
cannot see that with an electronic machine.
So with that, and I understand the points being made, but I would
hope that we can come together and support this bipartisan bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica).
Mr. MICA. I didn't get a chance to say this, but there is a quote
that I think should be part of the Record. And the quote is: ``An
informed electorate is the cornerstone of democracy and an educated
electorate.'' And that's what we need to do.
And they make errors. Folks make errors. They just don't circle one
and it's very clear. I'd love to bring the ballots here. Sometime I'll
have to do that to show you how people can mess it up. But an informed
electorate is the cornerstone of democracy. And, yes, we need to do all
we can to make certain that they're provided with all the assistance
from the Federal level to make certain that we have a fair, open,
honest election.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We don't have additional speakers. I
wonder if the gentleman has additional speakers.
Mr. EHLERS. We have no further speakers. If you have none then I will
make some concluding remarks.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We've heard a good deal of discussion on this bill. Some of you may
recall Parkinson's laws from some years ago in which he commented that
when there's a debate on a subject, the more the people know, the
longer the debate. And I suspect we could go on considerably longer if
we had more of the Members of Congress here simply because all of us
have experience with elections.
I would like to point out a few items. First of all, the comments
about the integrity of the system. I agree totally. The objective
should be the complete integrity of the system to insure that every
vote is counted accurately, and that every voter can be assured that
their vote is not cancelled out by someone who has illegally voted the
wrong way; in other words, through fraud or through mistakes by the
machine.
I believe that the audits that Mr. Holt has proposed are very
important and should be developed. It should be developed with the help
of the Secretaries of State and local election officials to develop a
system that works, so that we can ensure that the count is as accurate
as possible.
I also want to comment that the White House also has taken a dim view
of this. They've issued a SAP this afternoon, somewhat to my surprise,
that indicates that they oppose this bill and urge Members of the
Congress to vote against it.
But I do want to look at this from the historical perspective, and as
an older person, I've been around a while, and I've seen a lot of
different elections. Recalling the early history of our country, all
balloting was with paper. But because there was too much miscounting on
opportunity for fraud, machines were developed: the iron monsters, as
they called them, meaning the lever machines. And those were used for
years, even though their error rate also was note zero. And then we've
gone to many other voting methods over the years.
Now we're using high tech approaches with computers, and we have
encountered some of the same difficulties.
I am not saying that you can't make a perfect machine. I am saying
that as long as people are involved in operating them, there are likely
to be mistakes.
And one of my classics that I remember is from the presidential
election in 2004, when in Los Angeles County there were something like
nine candidates for President listed on the ballot. This was an optical
scan ballot. Over 3,600 voters crossed through the oval for candidates
other than President Bush and left his blank.
Now, how is one to interpret that? Did these voters think they should
leave the Bush oval blank because that was who they wanted to vote for?
Or were they saying ``Anyone but the President? Who knows. As long as
those types of mistakes are possible, they will be made. And we have to
do our best here to work diligently, with, and I emphasize ``working
with'' very strongly, working with the local elected officials, the
State-elected officials, and continue to do as best we can to perfect
the best possible voting system.
And with that, I will yield back.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we pass this
important legislation today.
I will confess that I am disappointed that the ranking member is not
today in support of this measure. We, on the majority side, accepted
every amendment offered by Republicans in the committee mark-up on this
bill, and I had hoped and expected that we would be able to continue to
work together and support this measure on the floor.
We reported the original Holt bill out of the committee over 1 year
ago, and in that time, between now and then, we have worked with
Secretaries of State, the National Association of Counties, disability
rights groups, voting rights groups, civil rights groups, to try and
get a measure that could garner broad support across the country. And I
believe that we have that measure before us today.
I will say that the White House issuing an SAP today, after a year's
work, I think, is really bad faith. We have worked very hard, and to
come out at the last minute is really very unprofessional.
I'd finally like to say that the dollar amount estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office is a worst-case scenario. There's no way
that that would be the full amount.
But even if it were, I would ask Members to think of this: Isn't the
American democracy worth as much as the Iraqi or the Pakistani
democracy?

{time} 1445

Aren't we willing to spend as much to make sure that our precious
American votes are counted as we are the votes of foreigners in other
countries? I would hope that as we consider our responsibility as
Members of Congress to our wonderful America and our wonderful country,
that the answer to that would be yes and therefore, a ``yes'' on the
whole bill.
There have been various quotes made today, but I think back of the
second Californian to ever be President of the United States, his
phrase was not used about voting, but it was this: Trust but verify.
That's what the Holt bill would do. It would trust but verify, and I
hope that Members today can come together and support the Holt bill.
I would like to commend once again Congressman Holt for his enormous
efforts that brought us here today.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Emergency Assistance
for Secure Elections Act, I rise in strong support of the bill.
Voting is the most fundamental element of democracy. It is the
mechanism by which citizens hold their government accountable for its
actions. This most critical of democratic actions depends, however, on
voters' confidence that their votes are counted fairly and accurately.

[[Page 6019]]

Voters have lost this confidence.
Election after election, year after year, millions of voters cast
votes not knowing if their votes will count because the machines
produce no paper records.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was supposed to resolve these
problems. However, it failed to address several major issues that
continue to plague the system and undermine the legitimacy of our
elections.
This so-called response to the 2000 election debacle in Florida
failed to implement accountability measures to ensure that every vote
is cast and counted accurately.
The Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act would address this
problem by providing funding for states and counties to implement safe,
secure and auditable voting systems in time for the 2008 general
election.
It would reimburse jurisdictions that choose to convert to paper-
based voting systems. The reimbursements also cover emergency paper
ballots used in the event of machine failure, and the cost of
conducting hand-counted audits or hand counting the results of
elections.
We must act to restore confidence in our election system. The
Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act will help restore this
confidence and help ensure that all votes are counted and recorded
properly. I urge my colleagues to fulfill their responsibility to
American voters by voting yes on this critical bill.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5036, the
Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008.
I think everyone in the chamber today remembers the frustration and
disbelief we all felt in November 2000 as hundreds of volunteers poured
into Dade County Florida to oversee the recount of the Presidential
election. As the future of our nation swayed in the balance, we all
thought to ourselves, Can this actually be happening in America?
The answer, unfortunately, was yes. As devastating as that event was,
I think we learned two very important lessons. The first is that every
vote really does count. Every person who is eligible must get to the
polls. The second lesson learned is that our system of elections is
broken. Changes must be mandated, improvements must be made.
That is why I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 5036. This bill
takes real steps to improve the transparency and accuracy of electoral
process by minimizing the financial burden placed on local governments
to ensure the accuracy of election results.
H.R. 5036 fully reimburses jurisdictions that choose to offer paper
ballots on Election Day. In the 2006 election cycle, we learned that
electronic voting machines are not always reliable, often
malfunctioning and creating substantial complications on Election Day.
H.R. 5036 also subsidizes manual recounts of elections results if basic
minimum requirements are met. We must provide resources to the states
to ensure that the elections they conduct are fair and accurate.
Both provisions provide absolutely necessary funding to alleviate the
significant burden placed on local and county governments when holding
elections. This relief is critical to ensure that local government
entities can protect the legitimacy of election results without
enduring financial hardship.
While, I recognize the fact that more must be done, I also believe
that this bill is a very good start and I want to commend my good
friend and colleague, Rush Holt, for his leadership on this issue. Even
a month ago, it appeared that passing this bill was impossible.
However, thanks to Representative Holt's tireless efforts to work with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, that impossibility
becomes reality today. America will be a better for place for his
efforts on this Issue.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, elections are the bedrock of our republic.
Our capacity to function as a tripartite government of co-equal
branches rests in the public's assurance that those of us entrusted to
administer and legislate assumed our offices through free, fair and
open elections.
I laud Congressman Rush Holt and his efforts to ensure the integrity
and accuracy of our voting system. However, today I must rise in
opposition to H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections
Act of 2008.
H.R. 5036 acknowledges that problems exist in our system of voting,
and that without action now these problems will grow. For this reason
the legislation has merit. While H.R. 5036 includes a provision to
reimburse jurisdictions that convert their paperless voting system to
one that includes a paper trail, it may also include optical scan
technology. I have serious concerns with optical scan technology and
its susceptibility to hacks and security breaches. Recent tests and
research have demonstrated the ease with which a person can manipulate
the configuration files to change votes. What's more, most of the
equipment necessary to accomplish this can be purchased off-the-shelf
at most technology stores.
Indeed, our voting system needs improvement, but replacing one flawed
technology with another will do little to garner public faith in the
electoral process. Let us make comprehensive electoral system reform a
priority, and let us enact a policy that ensures system integrity,
system security, and that each and every vote is counted.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act because I believe it is
essential that we ensure every American's basic right to vote and to
have that vote counted.
Currently, 15 states still use paperless voting machines which have
been proven to be unreliable and vulnerable to hacking. In the past two
election cycles, voting machines have malfunctioned and votes have been
lost forever. Computer scientists across the country have shown how
easy it is to hack these voting systems.
This bill will address these problems by providing the states with
financial backing from the Federal Government in order to convert from
electronic voting systems to paper ballot voting systems in time for
the November 2008 elections. The bill also provides emergency paper
ballots if the jurisdiction uses a direct recording electronic voting
system which happens to fail.
Today, 9 percent of the U.S. population records their votes
electronically. These numbers vary greatly from State to State. Twelve
percent of Ohio votes are recorded electronically; 80 percent of
Kentucky voters use electronic ballots. Without an adequate
confirmation method. mechanical deficiencies could have a drastic
impact on close elections. This problem must not go unnoticed, and must
be addressed.
Considering the tremendous election discrepancies that we have seen
take place in this country in 2000 and 2004, we know that we are still
dealing with a flawed system. I believe that the passage of this
legislation is paramount to ensuring that people throughout this
country are not disenfranchised when they attempt to exercise their
right to vote.
The right to vote is a right every citizen of this country deserves.
As Members of Congress, we all have an obligation to make sure all of
our constituents' votes are counted through the most fair and accurate
means available. The right to vote should not be reserved for just some
of our constituents, but for all of our constituents. It is for this
reason that I introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 which seeks
to provide an all-encompassing solution to a broad range of voting
irregularities that occurred during the 2004 presidential election. It
is for the same reason that I urge my colleagues to support the passage
of H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of
2008.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, while I was unfortunately absent for the vote
on H.R. 5036 due to commitments in my home state of California, I would
have voted in support of this legislation had I been present. I am
deeply dismayed that the bill failed to pass by a wide margin.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for
Secure Elections Act, I thank Congressman Holt for his vigorous efforts
to provide emergency support to states and counties that wish to ensure
that all votes are accurately counted through the use of paper ballots.
This bill would provide assistance to states and counties that
voluntarily choose to use paper-based voting systems. States would be
able to seek federal reimbursements for emergency paper ballots that
are offered in the event of technological failures. The bill would make
funding available for the development of procedures to conduct hand-
counted audits or to hand-count the results of elections.
Free and fair elections are fundamental aspects of a representative
democracy like the United States, and we must provide the necessary
support to our state and local governments to strengthen the integrity
of our democracy. In the 2004 election, while widespread usage of
electronic voting machines helped standardize our nation's voting
system and prevented some of the problems that occurred with punch-card
ballots in the 2000 election, there were reports of voting
irregularities, some of which were due to glitches in electronic voting
machine software. This is why it is absolutely necessary to make
available paper receipts that each voter can verify for themselves.
To this end, I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence
and Increased Accessibility Act. The legislation would require voting
systems to produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual
audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system.

[[Page 6020]]

A few years ago, I held a town hall meeting on electronic voting at
Santa Clara University to expand my knowledge and public awareness of
direct recording electronic (DRE) devices. The program provided much
insight into the development of DREs but it also left many unanswered
questions about their security and reliability. Since then, I have
supported legislation that seeks to ensure a voter verifiable record
and greater openness in the testing and certification process of DREs.
Even as secure technology is developed, voter verifiable records will
sustain the high integrity of our voting processes. It is imperative
that Congress helps support those states and counties that are willing
to use paper ballots to strengthen our democracy until electronic
systems that produce a paper trail are available, and to ensure that
all American votes cast will be counted.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my views on H.R. 5036, the
Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act.
As both a Member of the Committee on House Administration which has
considered this issue for many months and a former mayor who was
responsible for overseeing elections for many years, I know how
important it is that people have confidence in their votes. This bill
is part of an effort to ensure that we improve that confidence, which
has waned in recent years.
There are good provisions in this bill. I believe firmly that the
best way to ensure that votes are cast as intended and counted
accurately, is to provide paper ballots that the voters themselves
mark. This bill helps move the Nation in that direction by providing
optional funding for many localities that wish to switch to paper
ballots. For this reason, I support it.
However, there are some shortcomings in this legislation that I feel
must be stated for the Record. I do not personally believe that it is
the most effective use of Federal resources to give states funding in
order for them to add on printers to Direct Recording Electronic
devices (DREs). I don't believe that ``paper trails'' are an adequate
substitute for real paper ballots and for this reason, I have concerns
about giving states the funding to retrofit their DREs rather than
simply incentivizing the switch to real paper ballots.
Similarly, I am discouraged that the bill does not allow
jurisdictions with DREs that produce a paper trail access to Federal
funds to switch to real paper ballots. Many jurisdictions across the
country have come to the conclusion that paper ballots, not electronic
voting machines with paper trails, are the most reliable type of voting
system. By denying some jurisdictions the Federal resources to make
that positive switch, the bill fails to reward those who are making the
commitment to switch to what many believe is the best system.
However, I am supporting this bill. Because is not overly
prescriptive, I hope that many jurisdictions consider utilizing its
positive provisions, should it become law. I look forward to continuing
to work with my colleagues on the committee and in the full House
toward a better and more trustworthy vote.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5036, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

HOUSE SALARIES

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 5493) to provide that the usual day for paying
salaries in or under the House of Representatives may be established by
regulations of the Committee on House Administration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5493

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION TO
ESTABLISH DAY FOR PAYING SALARIES IN OR UNDER
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Section 116(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 2002 (2 U.S.C. 60d-1) is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, the Committee on House Administration may by
regulation provide for the payment of salaries with respect
to a month on a date other than the date provided under the
previous sentence as may be necessary to conform to generally
accepted accounting practices.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

General Leave

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5493 is a bill to address the frequency of staff
pay periods in the House. It provides that the day for paying staff may
be regulated by the Committee on House Administration. The House of
Representatives currently pays the staff once a month. The executive
branch, the Senate, and most private companies pay their employees
twice a month or every two weeks.
We are considering a change because once-a-month pay can be difficult
for staffers budgeting on a tight paycheck. In addition, the
committee's oversight experience with payroll software suggested
adopting a more common approach will save money, reduce errors and
increase efficiency. Unfortunately, the committee can't change the pay
schedule for House staff until we change the law.
This bill will give the committee the authority to change the date
that staffers are paid. It won't change the pay schedule right away.
Once this bill is enacted, the committee will adopt regulations that
change the pay cycle.
I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Ehlers, for
cosponsoring this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5493, which would establish
that the pay date in the House be determined by Committee on House
Administration regulations. However, I want to make clear that, while I
support the committee establishing its authority to determine the
House's pay date, I do not necessarily support alteration of the
current House pay schedule at this time.
Along with the obvious administrative challenges that would impact
the CAO, there are a number of cultural implications within the House
population that must be addressed prior to making such a change.
Many employees pay their mortgages, utility bills, and other
financial obligations in concert with a monthly pay schedule. To change
a system that has been in place for such an extended period of time
will have a pervasive impact and must be considered and communicated
thoroughly before it is instituted.
This bill is the first step on a very long road, and it should be
followed by hearings and surveys to allow House employees to express
their opinions.
However, I fully support the efforts of Chairman Brady to ensure that
the committee take a decisive role in determining whether or not
changes to the House pay schedule are made.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5493.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

[[Page 6021]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

HOUSE EXERCISE FACILITY

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1068) permitting active duty
members of the Armed Forces who are assigned to a Congressional liaison
office of the Department of Defense at the House of Representatives to
obtain membership in the exercise facility established for employees of
the House of Representatives, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 1068

Resolved, That any active duty member of the Armed Forces
who is assigned to a Congressional liaison office of the
Armed Forces at the House of Representatives may obtain
membership in the exercise facility established for employees
of the House of Representatives (as described in section
103(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005) in
the same manner as an employee of the House of
Representatives, in accordance with such regulations as the
Committee on House Administration may promulgate.

General Leave

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1068 responds to a specific request from the
liaisons who serve in each branch of the military and assist us daily
in the House of Representatives. They have just a simple favor to ask
that they be allowed to use the House staff gym since they work here
far away from the ordinary military fitness facilities.
In order to ensure that the military liaisons can maintain the
physical fitness and readiness while they serve in the House, this
resolution will allow them to use the House staff gym. The committee
will adopt regulations for the use of this facility.
We anticipate that the Armed Forces personnel who use the facility
would do so consistently with military policy and, to the extent
possible, during off-peak hours.
Again, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for cosponsoring this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1068, which would permit
military liaisons who are assigned to official duty within the House of
Representatives to join the House Staff Fitness Center. The center has
been a welcome benefit to many House employees since it opened in
December of 2005. Located in the southwest corner of the Rayburn
building, the fitness center covers 11,000 square feet in which gym
members can take advantage of health screenings and fitness
assessments, take part in health wellness workshops and seminars, and
receive individualized exercise programs, in addition to using the
state-of-the-art exercise equipment.
While membership in the House Staff Fitness Center will prove a
convenient and useful operation to those military personnel who work in
the House campus, I think it's also important to recognize that these
gentlemen and women are part of the military. They must remain in shape
because they may be called into active duty at any time.
And so I believe this is a good bill, and I thank Chairman Brady for
his work on the bill.
I yield back my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1068, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A resolution permitting active
duty members of the Armed Forces who are assigned to a Congressional
liaison office of the Armed Forces at the House of Representatives to
obtain membership in the exercise facility established for employees of
the House of Representatives.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR THE PRESENTATION
OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO MICHAEL ELLIS DeBAKEY, M.D.

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
discharge the Committee on House Administration from further
consideration of S. Con. Res. 71 and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not
object, but I would like to make a few comments.
I am proud to support S. Con. Res. 71, which authorizes the use of
the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional
Gold Medal to Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey.
A pioneer in the field of cardiovascular surgery, Dr. DeBakey became
chairman of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University College of
Medicine in 1948. Over the last half century, he has created a number
of medical devices, techniques, and procedures that have saved
countless lives. He is perhaps best known for his pioneering efforts in
cardiovascular surgery, as he was one of the first physicians to ever
perform coronary bypass surgery.
Additionally, Michael DeBakey is credited with developing the concept
for the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, or M.A.S.H., units which were
used in the Vietnam and Korean War to treat injured soldiers, saving
even more lives.
An adviser to nearly every President for the past 50 years, Dr.
DeBakey has served the public through his vast knowledge on a variety
of medical issues. He has published more than 1,300 medical articles
and has performed over 60,000 cardiovascular procedures. He is a
beloved educator, so much so that in 1976, his students across the
globe worked together to establish the Michael E. DeBakey International
Surgical Society in his honor.
Dr. DeBakey has received numerous awards for his work, including the
Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969 and the National Medal of
Science, which was awarded to him by the late President Ronald Reagan
in 1987.
I am extremely pleased that this bill will enable us to bestow
another honor upon Dr. DeBakey as he receives the Congressional Gold
Medal in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the concurrent resolution
provides for the use of the Capitol Rotunda to award the Congressional
Gold Medal, and I support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Michael DeBakey is a pioneer in the field of heart
surgery and research. Dr. DeBakey honed his skills as an Army doctor
during World War II. While chairman of the Department of Surgery at the
Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. DeBakey performed the first heart
bypass surgery. He has saved countless lives.

[[Page 6022]]

Dr. DeBakey has received a Presidential Medal of Freedom and the
National Medal of Science, as well as awards from the American Medical
Association, the American Heart Association, and the Academy of
Surgical Research.
We are honored to authorize the use of the Capitol Rotunda to present
Dr. DeBakey with the Congressional Gold Medal, and again, I thank the
gentleman from Michigan for his support.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The text of the Senate concurrent resolution is as follows:

S. Con. Res. 71

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR THE PRESENTATION OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to
be used on April 23, 2008, for the presentation of the
Congressional Gold Medal to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D.
Physical preparations for the conduct of the ceremony shall
be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be
prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
in the Record on the concurrent resolution just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

{time} 1500
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5719, TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND
SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2008

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1102 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1102

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
5719) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform
return preparer penalty standards, delay implementation of
withholding taxes on government contractors, enhance taxpayer
protections, assist low-income taxpayers, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5719 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

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

General Leave

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1102 provides for consideration of H.R. 5719,
the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, under a closed
rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the bill controlled by
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, today, April 15, is Tax Day, which has long been a
source of stress and anxiety for many working families. However, today
we will bring good news. We will consider legislation that will
alleviate many of the tax-related difficulties Americans face today and
throughout the year. This legislation will streamline the tax filing
process for individuals and businesses as well as improve IRS customer
service and strengthen privacy protections.
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act is also fully paid for
by ensuring funds from tax-advantaged health savings accounts will be
used for qualified health care expenses, and by temporarily delaying a
withholding requirement on government payments to contractors.
It also contains provisions to strengthen the integrity of the Tax
Code, making it simpler and fairer for all Americans. It eliminates
incentives for U.S. companies to outsource work by ensuring they cannot
escape paying employment taxes on government workers.
In addition, this legislation will also prevent thousands of elderly
and disabled individuals from owing employment taxes for in-home care
workers provided through State and local government programs.
This legislation also improves IRS service and outreach to low-income
taxpayers in several ways. First, it allows IRS employees to refer
taxpayers requiring assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income
taxpayer clinics. It also requires that the IRS notify taxpayers of
their potential eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has
been the largest need-based, anti-poverty program in the United States,
lifting millions of Americans out of poverty every single year.
GAO estimates that in 2004, Americans failed to claim $8 billion in
earned income tax credits, hundreds of millions of dollars in my home
State of Ohio alone. These credits have the potential to help
strengthen families and their financial security while also benefiting
our communities at large by stimulating local economic development and
job growth. And in order to ensure that eligible families can continue
to take advantage of the earned income tax credit, this legislation
authorizes an annual $10 million grant to Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance, or VITA, programs. VITA provides free assistance to
qualified low-income taxpayers, thanks to these grants as well as the
assistance of dedicated volunteers across the country.
The availability of these valuable services makes it unnecessary for
working families to turn to high-cost tax preparers and unscrupulous
organizations engaging in predatory practices like offering what is
called ``Refund Anticipation Loans.''
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act also includes several
provisions to strengthen privacy protections and government
accountability. Importantly, it prohibits the IRS from providing
individual taxpayer information to private entities employing predatory
loan tactics. And it requires the IRS to notify taxpayers of suspected
identity theft and fraud. It also takes the important step of repealing
the authority of the IRS to contract with private debt collection
agencies.
Mr. Speaker, there is no duty more central to the functioning of the
Federal Government than the collection of its revenue. But under the
Bush Administration, this inherently governmental responsibility has
been farmed out to private collectors who keep up to 25 percent of the
tax revenues they collect. The program has caused confusion and
aggravation for many taxpayers because these private debt collectors
frequently demand sensitive personal information without revealing

[[Page 6023]]

the nature of their phone calls, as was documented in a Ways and Means
Committee hearing last year.
In addition, the operations of private contractors are not held to
the same standard of transparency as required of the Federal
Government. There is the danger that sensitive personal information
could be compromised through careless handling of these cases without
accountability. The Taxpayer Advocate Service has reported over 1,500
complaints related to this program. And not only are there serious
privacy and service issues, but the promised cost savings of the
private debt collection program has simply not materialized. One needs
to look no further than a headline on the front page of today's
Washington Post that proclaims, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than They
Raise.''
Private debt collectors are also less efficient than the IRS. As the
IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service points out, the Department of the
Treasury estimates that private collection agencies collect $4 for
every dollar it invests in tax collection efforts, but every dollar
invested in IRS collections yields five times that amount.
The downside of continuing to outsource the duties of the Internal
Revenue Service clearly outweigh any benefits. It's just another
disturbing example of a poor governmental function being outsourced to
private contractors with subpar results and a lack of transparency and
accountability. It is a waste of taxpayer resources, and it is about
time that we eliminated the IRS's authority to outsource this
government responsibility.
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act improves government
accountability and makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer for all
Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 52nd closed
rule of the 110th Congress, a new record for the United States
Congress. And I oppose, also, the underlying legislation which would
have been passed by this House in a bipartisan fashion without the
inclusion of two partisan and controversial measures that have already
drawn veto threats from President Bush's senior advisers.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert a Statement of Administrative Policy for
H.R. 5719 in the Congressional Record outlining the administration's
oppositions to these two provisions.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5719--Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008

(Rep. Rangel (D) New York and 16 cosponsors.)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719, the so-
called ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of
2008.'' The bill includes provisions that would impose new
administrative burdens on the trustees of Health Savings
Accounts (HSAs). These new burdens on HSA administrators are
unnecessary for efficient tax administration, inconsistent
with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their
inception, and could undermine efforts by employers,
individuals, and insurers to reduce health care costs and
improve health outcomes by empowering consumers to take
greater control of health care decision-making. If H.R. 5719
were presented to the President with these provisions, his
senior advisors would recommend he would veto the bill.
Also, the Administration strongly opposes the provisions of
the bill that would repeal the current statutory
authorization for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) private
debt collection program. As of February 2008, over 98,000
cases have been referred to contractors, representing over
$910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program
would result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the
next ten years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on
Taxation. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the
Government and are otherwise very unlikely to be collected by
the IRS due to workload demands. As noted in previous
Statements of Administration Policy, the Administration
strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not
consistent with the Administration's commitment to a balanced
approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting
outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to
the President with these provisions, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill.

The first partisan provision unnecessarily included by our friends,
the Democrats, in this otherwise noncontroversial measure would require
all HSA account holders to verify independently the qualified nature of
medical expenses for all withdrawals subject to those transactions not
substantiated to income taxes.
In theory, it is extremely important to make sure that health savings
accounts are being used for qualified medical expenses and not for
everyday use. Unfortunately, this language takes the reporting process
way too far and risks discouraging health savings accounts enrollment,
limiting patient choice, and further burdening our banks and financial
organizations with implementing the substantial requirements.
The current system requires that nonqualified withdrawals from a
health savings account are subject to individual income taxes as well
as a 10 percent penalty. If the Internal Revenue Service is not
enforcing these penalties, it should be, and it would make sense that
Congress would take the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate
audits take place. Our constituents' health and our Nation's financial
institutions should not suffer from the Federal Government's
inefficiency.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has said that this provision would
save money, though they are unable to determine how much savings would
result from the newly captured penalties and taxes that make HSAs,
health savings accounts, less attractive to consumers, in turn, giving
them less health care choices.
I might add that HSAs are there to provide consumers that do not have
the tax advantages that corporate employees have, it gives employees
health care on a pretax basis and is very important to families across
this country.
But consumers are not the only ones who would suffer. Introducing a
new step of independent substantiation would increase costs for banks
and account administrators. Should that happen, it is very possible
that they will pass on these costs to employees, and ultimately,
consumers.
Over the past several weeks, Democrats have loudly complained about
the charges that banks and other commercial lending institutions pass
on to their customers, yet provisions allow for the possibility of
increasing those costs further when it now applies to an HSA. I think
Members of this body should be opposed to that.
The other controversial and partisan provisions included in this
legislation would revoke the Internal Revenue Service's authority to
contract out collection authority for those small accounts that in the
private sector would often be referred to as ``old and cold.'' In 2004,
Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and
advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog
of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these
unpaid taxes exist, meaning that every year the average taxpayer who
plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover the taxes not paid
for by these people who are not paying.
This new practice, which begins as a small pilot program that grows
as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in approximately $2.2
billion in the first 10 years alone. And under this agreement, the IRS
would get the first 25 cents of every dollar to hire new collections
professionals, a provision that will have a positive, compound effect
by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue
for the government in the future.
The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous
attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed,
has been hugely successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of
uncollected taxes. Mr. Speaker, that means that $30 million worth of
taxes that the IRS chose not to collect has been brought in as a result
of what these outside collectors have done. It has received a 98
percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy as
well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less
than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies
have filed complaints with the IRS, not one of which has been
validated.

[[Page 6024]]

Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers
who play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention
the increased revenues that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other
new, big spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other
side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work,
supposedly to protect the dues of big government union bosses.

{time} 1515

They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in
America already contract out their services, that this is something
that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it
to be said that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government
Accounting Office found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private
collectors . . . and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could
learn from their best practices as it works to resolve longstanding
problems with its debt collection activities.''
As well, in July of 2007, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was
incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in
over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 full
agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the
government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not
have otherwise received, which was about one-eighth of what it cost for
these nonexisting services to be paid for.
In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will
lose his or her job as a result of this highly efficient private
contracting. Instead, the IRS will benefit from the opportunity to
focus their talent, expertise, and resources on higher priority, more
complex cases.
Last night in the most-closed-Congress-in-history Rules Committee, I
offered an amendment coauthored by my friend Congressman Kevin Brady of
Texas to strike this unfortunate provision, which was unsurprisingly
defeated by the Democrat majority along party lines.
I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule and
the underlying legislation that includes these two provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I'd just like to clarify for
the Record some of the things that have been presented.
The National Taxpayer Advocate, who is appointed by the Treasury
Secretary, reported to Congress that ``the money spent on the IRS
Private Debt Collection initiative is an inefficient use of government
dollars.'' The Chief of the National Taxpayer Advocate Service
testified that the IRS employees bring in $20 for every dollar IRS
spends, whereas private debt collectors bring in only $4.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the
underlying legislation. The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act
is an important step toward a more straightforward, just tax system. I
commend Chairman Rangel for his tireless leadership.
Among other things, this bill will allow IRS employees to refer
taxpayers needing assistance to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics,
boost outreach, supporting the earned income tax credit. For so many
families facing such great income insecurity during these difficult
times, the EITC is a powerful initiative whose benefits reach our
entire economy.
In particular, I want to recognize Representative Ellsworth and
highlight this bill's Fair Tax Provision, rooted in our belief that no
one, no one, should receive special privileges under our tax system.
After all, what does it say about our Nation and our priorities when
American companies like Kellog, Brown & Root, by far the largest
contractor in Iraq, are allowed to take their Department of Defense
dollars and filter them through offshore shell companies in order to
avoid paying significant Social Security and Medicare taxes? It is my
understanding that there are no other contractors in Iraq who are doing
this.
KBR, which received a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq's oil
infrastructure and provides logistical support to the military, employs
roughly 14,000 Americans in Iraq, and nearly all of them, approximately
10,500, are listed as employees of two Cayman Islands' shell companies,
contracted by KBR solely to avoid paying payroll taxes for those
workers.
And that means big cost savings passed on to a Defense Department
that is contracted to reimburse KBR for all its labor costs while
guaranteeing a profit, a Defense Department that is more than ready to
look the other way as long as the bottom line works out in its favor.
Indeed, the department knew KBR was shirking its responsibilities since
2004; yet they took no action. This kind of setup may mean a smaller
price tag on any particular contract, but the long-term costs to the
government and the taxpayer are far greater, $846 million over 10
years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And the only one
who really wins in the end is the company who gets the contract thanks
to its unfair competitive advantage.
Mr. Speaker, these practices must end. This bill amends current law
to treat foreign subsidies of U.S. companies under contract with the
U.S. Government as American employers. And it changes the degree of
common ownership to 50 percent, ensuring that more companies owing
taxes are subject to the new law and greater transparency.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for the Department of
Defense to pay for this war by doing business with a company that
siphons money from its own workers and its own government, undermining
the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds in the process. When
tax dodgers try to avoid their responsibility, the American taxpayer
suffers. This company should not be allowed to shirk their
responsibilities and then be able to reap the rewards of very large
Federal contracts. It is wrong. It should end. And we can no longer
afford to look the other way.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm starting to get it. The IRS has a lot
of work to do, and then as accounts become older because they don't get
to those and they become 2, 3, 4, 5 years old but they are still debts
that are owed this country, the IRS now, or at least we are led to
believe this, would go collect that money when they hadn't done it
their first 5 years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not true. They will not go collect these
accounts. They are old. And the point is it's still a debt that is owed
to the United States Government. And that's where these private
collectors come in. Private collectors that collect for at least 40 out
of 50 States. Private collectors that have a 100 percent rating.
Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to say is that the IRS probably does
do a good job with what it does do. But when it has not handled an
account, it is unwise and bad for the taxpayer not to receive that
money that is due from its services and from the taxes that took place,
and that's what these collectors are all about. To say that they're not
as efficient an outside collector as an IRS collector is silly because
these cases are ones the IRS didn't want to handle in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 5719.
As we are all aware, today is April 15, and once again Americans from
all across this land and from all walks of life must fork over their
hard-earned income to the IRS. So to ease the burden on the taxpayer,
the House Democratic leadership, under a closed rule,

[[Page 6025]]

no opportunity for amendment, brings up this so-called Taxpayer
Assistance and Simplification Act.
However, Mr. Speaker, anyone who takes a good, hard look at the
language in the bill, they might not think today is April 15 but rather
April Fools Day. In fact, this legislation should really be entitled
the ``Tax Evader Assistance and Simplification Act.''
For example, this legislation will provide assistance to those who
just don't feel like paying their taxes by eliminating a successful
debt collection program that my friend from Texas just mentioned.
Instead of lowering taxes for hardworking Americans of over half a
billion dollars, this majority would rather give a tax break to these
tax evaders to the tune, Mr. Speaker, of about $600 million.
And, unfortunately, to pay for these tax-evader protections, this
bill targets what? Health Savings Accounts and the millions of
Americans who are trying to take control of their own health care
decisions. This legislation will cost those Americans who use HSAs, as
my children do, nearly $500 million. It effectively works to destroy
market-based solutions in order to force government-run health care
down the throats of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this bill makes today seem more
like April Fools Day. Well, that moniker already belongs to April 1; so
perhaps we can just call today ``Thank a Congressional Democrat Day.''
I would say to the American people if they are happy that this
Congress today will basically give away $600 million to tax evaders,
thank a congressional Democrat.
If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has done nothing
to repeal the deplorable death tax, thank a congressional Democrat.
If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has refused time
after time to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 when our economy
needs it most, thank a congressional Democrat.
If they are happy with the fact this Congress has for 2 straight
years passed budgets that included the largest tax increase in United
States history, thank a congressional Democrat.
And if they look forward to the prospect of writing an even bigger
check to the IRS next year than they did this year, well, you guessed
it, they can thank a congressional Democrat.
Mr. Speaker, I again ask all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican,
to oppose this rule so this bill can be amended to provide real
assistance to the American taxpayer. But if this rule passes, I call
upon them to oppose the underlying ``Tax Evader Protection and
Simplification Act.''
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support moving forward
with this legislation.
I was a former small business owner, and I understand the real costs
of health care, health insurance, increasing year after year. It's my
understanding that the health savings account provision is not going to
increase the burden on employers. The bill does not intend for
employers to be subject to any additional burdens or obligations. And
what it simply does is it closes the tax gap by requiring HSA trustees
to report amounts paid to individuals that are not identified with
medical expenses. Furthermore, we are going to be asking the GAO to
study the uses of distribution from the HSAs.
So I'm really pleased to know that we are ensuring that this
provision does not negatively impact our business community.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from
Arizona's letting us know about her understanding of what's happening.
What I would like to tell her is that a number of companies,
including the National Association for the Self-Employed, National
Association of Health Underwriters, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail
Federation, National Taxpayers Union, Principal Financial Group, Retail
Industry Leaders Association, Financial Services Roundtable, the HSA
Council, the UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WellPoint,
these people that employ people that utilize the HSA, are all saying it
will have a negative impact upon the use of HSAs making it easier for
individuals to get and have health care on a pretax basis.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

{time} 1530

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me just make the observation that today
is Tax Day, and effectively what we are doing to the American taxpayers
is making them jump through more hoops. Certainly if they have an HSA,
and the costs of this program are projected to be about a half a
billion dollars a year, what we are going to be doing, what we are
doing in bringing this bill to the floor, is enacting burdensome
bureaucratic regulations that are going to undermine those health
savings accounts which have been proven successful at slowing the
growth of health costs and cutting insurance premiums for millions of
individuals and small businesses. And my colleague has just listed all
the business groups that are opposed to this legislation.
The question I guess I have is in the last session, we had a largely
bipartisan bill that the Republicans put forward, with Democratic
support, 407-7 it passed. But now we have this provision dropped into
this bill that cripples health savings accounts. Now I know we have a
philosophical difference of opinion on whether we want to keep health
care private and do it through the marketplace, or whether we want to
have a government nationalization and takeover of health care. What I
am sharing with you is if you cripple HSAs in this way, I guess you do
build momentum for a government takeover of health care. But that is
not going to make savings for the American consumers.
HSAs are effective in reducing costs for the consumer. And I have got
to tell you, these new burdens are unnecessary. They are inefficient.
They are inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at
their inception. These provisions undermine efforts by employers,
individuals and insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health
outcomes.
How is it possible that we are going to consider a program here where
it will take longer to receive reimbursements and will require
individuals to come up with money out of their own pocket, potentially
hundreds of dollars, on occasion $1,000 or so, at one time under this
new proposal?
I just think that this new step of independent substantiation frankly
helps only one company, or a very limited number of companies who offer
such bureaucratic systems and imposes costs on all of the rest. This is
going to increase the costs for the banks, for the account
administrators, and for the individual who uses them. And it is going
to be passed on to the consumers.
So we do complain about the charges which banks and other commercial
lending institutions pass on to their customers. But why have this
provision that is going to increase those costs on the consumer? This
does not make sense. Health savings accounts were created to reduce the
growth of health care costs. And they have achieved some noteworthy
successes. But this bill is going to lead to increased health care
costs for individuals by crippling HSAs. Don't taxpayers have enough to
worry about on Tax Day?
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can fix this
bill and provide a little relief to hardworking Americans on April 15.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. This is an important bill and a timely bill.
This is a bill that is due as a gift to the American people on this day
which is referred to as Tax Day, April 15.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill simplifies the Tax Code. It also deals
with antiharassment. It also deals with making sure that companies who
do business in foreign lands are not using offshore accounts as scams
to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

[[Page 6026]]

And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it deals with the simplification
of the code and applies that to those people who need it the most,
because so many people, Mr. Speaker, are not even getting the
advantages and getting their due from paying the taxes because of the
fact that our Tax Code is so complicated. It is so complex. And this
bill streamlines that.
Now let me take just a few minute to go through some very salient
points. The Government Accountability Office estimates that Americans
overpaid their taxes by over $1 billion a year because they failed to
claim deductions. This bill deals with that. About a quarter of
Americans who are eligible for the earned income tax credit failed to
claim that due to its complexity.
But what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is it makes the Tax Code
simpler and fairer. It strengthens the IRS's outreach program to make
sure that people know that they are entitled to the tax refunds and to
payments earned under the earned income tax credit. As I mentioned,
there are 25 percent of households who are eligible for the earned
income tax credit in 1999 that did not even claim it. And working
Americans may have lost out on approximately $8 billion. This bill
corrects that.
And one of the most important measures of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is
that the American people are tired of the harassment. They are tired of
the phone calls, the abuse by these private collectors in which jobs
are outsourced by the IRS to go collect the Federal debt. We have
talked with the IRS. We have talked with the commissioner of the IRS.
And he agrees with us that that can best be done not by outsourcing
these jobs out, but by having the IRS employees collect that debt.
Personal financial information of our American people is too precious
and it is too confidential to be in the hands of private contractors on
the outside.
And just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, we have foreign companies like
KBR that are working and having millions of dollars of contracts
servicing in Iraq. But they are using offshore accounts to hide that
money to make sure that they do not have to pay the important taxes
that go to Medicaid and to Medicare, not only not paying their fair
share, Mr. Speaker, and hundreds of millions of dollars, but not even
allowing their employees to qualify for Medicare and for Social
Security. This bill corrects that.
And another important area, Mr. Speaker, is the new taxpayer
protections against identity theft and tax fraud. It cracks down on
misleading web sites that seek to get personal information by using
their web sites and imitating and pretending that they are the IRS. Now
Mr. Speaker, the American people are certainly fed up with being abused
by these private collectors, being abused by these Web siters who are
posing themselves as IRS agents.
This is a very important measure. I support this rule going forward.
This is a very important bill, giving the taxpayers a due recognition,
making the Tax Code simpler, and making sure it is fair for all. It is
a good bill. I support this bill rule, and let's pass this bill and
move it forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that both sides have
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule. I am
opposed because the majority continues to punish States without an
income tax, States like Florida. Under the Republican leadership,
Congress allowed States to once again allow their residents to deduct
the State sales tax from their Federal income tax, just as other States
are able to deduct their State income tax. My colleagues and I have
repeatedly asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to extend
the deduction. But we have repeatedly been ignored.
As we all know, providing tax relief is a very important and
effective way to stimulate our economy. Yet, the majority is choosing
to pass a tax increase on to Floridians and residents of other States
that only have a State sales tax.
Florida has the second highest foreclosure rate in America. And this,
ladies and gentlemen, would increase taxes on people already stressing
to pay their mortgage payments, and today being April 15, obviously, to
rush down to the post office to pay their Federal income tax.
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act will not assist the
average taxpayer nor simplify their tax burden. Even though the bill is
being considered today, I haven't had a single constituent contact me
in support of this measure. I have, however, had some pretty upset
constituents come in about the fact that this is going to be the last
year that they can deduct the sales tax on their Federal income tax.
Instead of heading off their requests, the majority is passing this
bill under a closed rule, disallowing Members to help our cash-strapped
constituents. The majority should really be ashamed of what they are
doing today.
I urge all Members to vote against this rule and also the underlying
bill.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. Ellsworth).
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me
and yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act that is before us today. As everyone knows, it is
April 15, Tax Day. No one likes paying taxes. But what folks really
hate is when they have to pay more because bad actors are gaming the
system and not paying their fair share. In fact, recent reports in the
Boston Globe has shown that some government contractors have been using
offshore Cayman Islands places, tax havens, to avoid paying their
payroll taxes that they owe. A few weeks ago, I introduced the Fair
Share Act to put a stop to this abuse, and I am proud to have this
legislation included as part of today's important bill.
My constituents back in the Eighth District of Indiana don't want to
pay even more taxes to shore up programs like Social Security and
Medicare because companies who receive billions of dollars from this
very government are exploiting the tax system today.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a strong message
that Congress is not going to stand by and let contractors cheat their
workers, cheat the government or the American taxpayers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas
if he has any remaining speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentlewoman asking. At this time, I do
not have any additional speakers other than my close.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I'll
reserve my time until the gentleman has closed on his side and yielded
back his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, today is
Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes
without incurring financial penalties.
This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax
Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American
has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at
the Federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until
next week, April 23.
In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer
calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question to this rule. If this previous question is
defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to
consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend, the gentleman from
Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.
This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted
by

[[Page 6027]]

that act permanent. Let me say that again in regular English. That
means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make sure that all
these hardworking taxpayers that we are talking about won't have to pay
an increase of taxes because the new Democrat majority wants tax
increases for every single taxpayer in this country.
Today is an opportunity where we can make those tax cuts permanent to
make sure that our Tax Code encourages not only employers, but
employees, and to grow our economy. It also repeals the termination
date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003, thereby reducing income tax rates on
dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to
make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, the
tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing
allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax
credit for increasing research activities.

{time} 1545

In summary, I would just say this, that what it will do is to
maintain in a time of uncertainty the ability for America to continue
to grow jobs, which means that America can compete globally. On the
other hand, if you are for tax increases, if you want to tax taxpayers
more, just simply vote with the Democrat majority.
Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on
or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax
system.
Mr. Speaker, I can think of a no more fitting action for Congress
during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this
kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.
By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting
to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be
voting to provide tax relief to Americans as they provide debt relief
the same day to the world's poorest countries. I encourage all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of taxpayers who want to continue economic
growth in America, I say let's vote to make the tax cuts permanent.

Amendment to H. Res. 1102 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain
other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by
Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____

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

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification
Act of 2008 is a strong pro-taxpayer bill that adopts legislative
recommendations and tackles many of the most serious problems detailed
in the National Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress.
In this weakening economy, America's working families will face many
challenges in the months ahead and we in Congress need to do what we
can to help. This legislation will streamline the tax filing process
and ease the burden of tax law compliance, it will ensure that we are
good stewards of taxpayer funds by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful
programs that compromise the integrity of our governmental functions,
and it makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer by eliminating unduly
burdensome compliance requirements and providing commonsense solutions.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this legislation, because it
makes the needs of working Americans a priority.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support ordering the previous
question because I think the House should proceed to considering H.R.
5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, without
unnecessary delay.
Some have urged that Members oppose ordering the previous question so
that the House could consider legislation to make permanent all the tax
cuts the Bush Administration pushed through Congress in 2001.
I supported some of those reductions, but opposed others, and am not
convinced that they should all be made permanent. But in any event,
they will remain in effect until 2010. There is no need for us to
consider today which should be extended, either as they stand or in
modified form. I think instead we should proceed to the debate on H.R.
5719, and so I am voting to order the previous question.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 1102, the Rule to Consider H.R. 5719, ``Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008''. This legislation, introduced by Chairman
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis
(D-GA), modernizes Internal Revenue Service functions to make filing
taxes simpler while improving outreach to taxpayers.
This Rule allows considerations:

Summary of H.R. 5719

Key provisions included in H.R. 5719 as agreed to by the Committee
would eliminate the special requirements for individuals to

[[Page 6028]]

keep detailed records of calls made on employer-provided cell phones;
delay for one year the imposition of a three-percent withholding
requirement on government payments for goods and services made after
December 31, 2010; stops federal contractors from using foreign
subsidiaries to evade Social Security and other employment taxes; make
the administrators of state and local government programs liable for
paying the employment taxes on amounts paid by government programs to
in-home care workers provided to elderly and disabled persons; repeal
the IRS's authority to use private debt collection companies to collect
Federal taxes; prohibit the misuse of Department of the Treasury names
and symbols in misleading websites and ``phishing'' schemes; protect
low-income taxpayers by prohibiting IRS debt indicators for predatory
refund anticipation loans, allowing IRS employees to refer taxpayers to
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics, and authorizing funding for
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, ``VITA'' programs, and require the IRS
to notify taxpayers if it suspects theft of a taxpayer's identity.

Programs for the Benefit of Low-Income Taxpayers

There are parts of this tax bill that help the working poor and our
elderly, making this tax bill truly live up to its name of being one of
Taxpayer Assistance--not just give a credit to the top 2% of Americans.
This bill would authorize an annual $10 million grant for Volunteer
Income Tax Assistance, ``VITA'' programs, increasing the annual
aggregate limitation authorized on grants to qualified low-income
taxpayer clinics to $10 million.
This bill would allow IRS employees to refer taxpayers needing
assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics so
they can get the help they need. Many people are struggling with how to
manage complicated tax cases when they can barely afford to pay their
mortgage. This portion of the bill will alleviate the fear that is
sometimes associated with IRS tax cases particularly among people who
cannot afford legal counsel.

Elderly and Disabled Individuals Receiving In-Home Care

This bill would make the administrators of state and local government
programs liable for paying the employment taxes on amounts paid by
government programs to in-home care workers provided to elderly and
disabled persons. This is yet another provision of the bill that
benefits our most vulnerable populations.

Conclusion

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow
for full consideration of this bill by supporting H. Res. 1102, the
Rule providing for consideration of the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008. I fully support what Representative Rangel
and the Committee on Ways and Means has done to alleviate some of the
burden on taxpayers.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Sutton

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the rule which I
have placed at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Sutton:
Add at the end the following new sections:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment considered as adopted under the
first section of this resolution shall be modified as
specified in section 4.
Sec. 4. The modification referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Page 21, line 26, insert ``as related to account
beneficiary substantiation requirements'' after ``flexible
spending arrangements''.
Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 20. GAO STUDY ON HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the use of distributions from
health savings accounts.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit a report on the findings of the study conducted
under subsection (a) and shall include therein
recommendations (if any) relating to such findings. The
report shall be submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on agreeing to the amendment to House
Resolution 1102, if ordered; adopting House Resolution 1102, if
ordered; and suspending the rules with respect to H.R. 5036.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 196, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 186]

YEAS--220

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

NAYS--196

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce

[[Page 6029]]

Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Blunt
Capuano
Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
LoBiondo
Mack
Meek (FL)
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1612

Messrs. LAMBORN, McHENRY and STEARNS changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. HIGGINS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 195, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 187]

AYES--222

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

NOES--195

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

NOT VOTING--14

Capuano
Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Honda
LoBiondo
Mack
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1620

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

____________________

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR SECURE ELECTIONS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the bill, H.R. 5036, 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
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5036, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 178, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 188]

YEAS--239

[[Page 6030]]

Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heller
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 (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
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
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--178

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

NOT VOTING--14

Capuano
Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
LoBiondo
Mack
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Rangel
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1628

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

{time} 1630

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on
the bill, H.R. 5719.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.

____________________

TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2008

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
1102, I call up the bill (H.R. 5719) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to conform return preparer penalty standards, delay
implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, enhance
taxpayer protections, assist low-income taxpayers, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Pursuant to House
Resolution 1102, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 5719

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

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

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.
Sec. 2. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's
liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 3. Removal of cellular telephones (or similar telecommunications
equipment) from listed property.
Sec. 4. Delay of application of withholding requirement on certain
governmental payments for goods and services.
Sec. 5. Elderly and disabled individuals receiving in-home care under
certain government programs not subject to employment tax
provisions.
Sec. 6. Referrals to low income taxpayer clinics permitted.
Sec. 7. Programs for the benefit of low-income taxpayers.
Sec. 8. EITC outreach.
Sec. 9. Prohibition on IRS debt indicators for predatory refund
anticipation loans.
Sec. 10. Study on delivery of tax refunds.
Sec. 11. Extension of time for return of property for wrongful levy.
Sec. 12. Individuals held harmless on wrongful levy, etc., on
individual retirement plan.
Sec. 13. Taxpayer notification of suspected identity theft.
Sec. 14. Repeal of authority to enter into private debt collection
contracts.
Sec. 15. Clarification of IRS unclaimed refund authority.
Sec. 16. Prohibition on misuse of Department of the Treasury names and
symbols.
Sec. 17. Substantiation of amounts paid or distributed out of health
savings account.
Sec. 18. Certain domestically controlled foreign persons performing
services under contract with United States Government
treated as American employers.
Sec. 19. Time for payment of corporate estimated tax.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PENALTY ON UNDERSTATEMENT OF
TAXPAYER'S LIABILITY BY TAX RETURN PREPARER.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 6694 (relating
to understatement due to unreasonable positions) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Understatement Due to Unreasonable Positions.--
``(1) In general.--If a tax return preparer--
``(A) prepares any return or claim of refund with respect
to which any part of an understatement of liability is due to
a position described in paragraph (2), and
``(B) knew (or reasonably should have known) of the
position,

such tax return preparer shall pay a penalty with respect to
each such return or claim in an amount equal to the greater
of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be
derived) by

[[Page 6031]]

the tax return preparer with respect to the return or claim.
``(2) Unreasonable position.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, a position is described in this paragraph unless
there is or was substantial authority for the position.
``(B) Disclosed positions.--If the position was disclosed
as provided in section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) and is not a
position to which subparagraph (C) applies, the position is
described in this paragraph unless there is a reasonable
basis for the position.
``(C) Tax shelters and reportable transactions.--If the
position is with respect to a tax shelter (as defined in
section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii)) or a reportable transaction to
which section 6662A applies, the position is described in
this paragraph unless it is reasonable to believe that the
position would more likely than not be sustained on its
merits.
``(3) Reasonable cause exception.--No penalty shall be
imposed under this subsection if it is shown that there is
reasonable cause for the understatement and the tax return
preparer acted in good faith.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply--
(1) in the case of a position described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of section 6694(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (as amended by this section), to returns prepared after
May 25, 2007, and
(2) in the case of a position described in subparagraph (C)
of such section (as amended by this section), to returns
prepared for taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES (OR SIMILAR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT) FROM LISTED
PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 280F(d)(4)
(defining listed property) is amended by inserting ``and'' at
the end of clause (iv), by striking clause (v), and by
redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

SEC. 4. DELAY OF APPLICATION OF WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT ON
CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS FOR GOODS AND
SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 511 of the Tax
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate a report with respect to the withholding
requirements of section 3402(t) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, including a detailed analysis of--
(1) the problems, if any, which are anticipated in
administering and complying with such requirements,
(2) the burdens, if any, that such requirements will place
on governments and businesses (taking into account such
mechanisms as may be necessary to administer such
requirements), and
(3) the application of such requirements to small
expenditures for services and goods by governments.

SEC. 5. ELDERLY AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING IN-HOME
CARE UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS NOT
SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT TAX PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 25 (relating to general provisions
relating to employment taxes) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 3511. ELDERLY AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING IN-
HOME CARE UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of amounts paid under a home
care service program to a home care service provider by the
fiscal administrator of such program--
``(1) the home care service recipient shall not be liable
for the payment of any taxes imposed under this subtitle with
respect to amounts paid for the provision of services under
such program, and
``(2) the fiscal administrator shall be so liable.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Home care service program.--The term `home care
service program' means a State or local government program--
``(A) any portion of which is funded with Federal funds,
and
``(B) under which domestic services are provided to elderly
or disabled individuals in their homes.

Such term shall not include any program to the extent home
care service recipients make payments to the home care
service providers for such in-home domestic services.
``(2) Home care service provider.--The term `home care
service provider' means any individual who provides domestic
services to a home care service recipient under a home care
service program.
``(3) Home care service recipient.--The term `home care
service recipient' means any individual receiving domestic
services under a home care service program.
``(4) Fiscal administrator.--The term `fiscal
administrator' means any person or governmental entity who
pays amounts under a home care service program to home care
service providers for the provision of domestic services
under such program.
``(c) Returns by Fiscal Administrator.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--Returns relating to taxes imposed or
amounts required to be withheld under this subtitle shall be
made under the identifying number of the fiscal
administrator.
``(2) Identification of service recipient.--The fiscal
administrator shall, to the extent required under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, make a return setting forth--
``(A) the name, address, and identifying number of each
home care service recipient for whom amounts are paid by such
fiscal administrator under the home care services program,
and
``(B) such other information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this section, including requiring
deposits of any tax imposed under this subtitle.''.
(b) Service Recipient Identification Return Treated as
Information Return.--Paragraph (3) of section 6724(d) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(C)(ii), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
(D)(ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) any requirement under section 3511(c)(2).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
25 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 3511. Elderly and disabled individuals receiving in-home care
under certain government programs.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2008.

SEC. 6. REFERRALS TO LOW INCOME TAXPAYER CLINICS PERMITTED.

(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 7526 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Treasury employees permitted to refer taxpayers to
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, officers and employees of the
Department of the Treasury may refer taxpayers for advice and
assistance to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics receiving
funding under this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to referrals made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 7. PROGRAMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOW-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

(a) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Programs.--Chapter 77
(relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by
inserting after section 7526 the following new section:

``SEC. 7526A. VOLUNTEER INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds, make grants to provide
matching funds for the development, expansion, or
continuation of volunteer income tax assistance programs.
``(b) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program.--For
purposes of this section, the term `volunteer income tax
assistance program' means a program--
``(1) which does not charge taxpayers for its return
preparation services,
``(2) which operates programs to assist low and moderate-
income (as determined by the Secretary) taxpayers in
preparing and filing their Federal income tax returns, and
``(3) in which all of the volunteers who assist in the
preparation of Federal income tax returns meet the
requirements prescribed by the Secretary.
``(c) Special Rules and Limitations.--
``(1) Aggregate limitation.--Unless otherwise provided by
specific appropriation, the Secretary shall not allocate more
than $10,000,000 per year (exclusive of costs of
administering the program) to grants under this section.
``(2) Other applicable rules.--Rules similar to the rules
under paragraphs (2) through (6) of section 7526(c) shall
apply with respect to the awarding of grants to volunteer
income tax assistance programs.''.
(b) Increase in Authorized Grants for Low-Income Taxpayer
Clinics.--Paragraph (1) of section 7526(c) (relating to
aggregate limitation) is amended by striking ``$6,000,000''
and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section 7526(c)(5) is amended by inserting
``qualified'' before ``low-income''.
(2) The table of sections for chapter 77 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 7526 the
following new item:

``Sec. 7526A. Volunteer income tax assistance programs.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. EITC OUTREACH.

(a) In General.--Section 32 (relating to earned income) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Notification of Potential Eligibility for Credit and
Refund.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent possible and on an annual
basis, the Secretary shall provide to each taxpayer who--
``(A) for any preceding taxable year for which credit or
refund is not precluded by section 6511, and
``(B) did not claim the credit under subsection (a) but may
be allowed such credit for any such

[[Page 6032]]

taxable year based on return or return information (as
defined in section 6103(b)) available to the Secretary,

notice that such taxpayer may be eligible to claim such
credit and a refund for such taxable year.
``(2) Notice.--Notice provided under paragraph (1) shall be
in writing and sent to the last known address of the
taxpayer.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON IRS DEBT INDICATORS FOR PREDATORY
REFUND ANTICIPATION LOANS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 6011 (relating
to promotion of electronic filing) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Prohibition on irs debt indicators for predatory
refund anticipation loans.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out any program under this
subsection, the Secretary shall not provide a debt indicator
to any person with respect to any refund anticipation loan if
the Secretary determines that the business practices of such
person involve refund anticipation loans and related charges
and fees that are predatory.
``(B) Refund anticipation loan.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `refund anticipation loan' means a loan
of money or of any other thing of value to a taxpayer secured
by the taxpayer's anticipated receipt of a Federal tax
refund.
``(C) IRS debt indicator.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `debt indicator' means a notification provided
through a tax return's acknowledgment file that a refund will
be offset to repay debts for delinquent Federal or State
taxes, student loans, child support, or other Federal agency
debt.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 10. STUDY ON DELIVERY OF TAX REFUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, shall
conduct a study on the feasibility of delivering tax refunds
on debit cards, prepaid cards, and other electronic means to
assist individuals that do not have access to financial
accounts or institutions.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit a report to Congress containing the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 11. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY FOR
WRONGFUL LEVY.

(a) Extension of Time for Return of Property Subject to
Levy.--Subsection (b) of section 6343 (relating to return of
property) is amended by striking ``9 months'' and inserting
``2 years''.
(b) Period of Limitation on Suits.--Subsection (c) of
section 6532 (relating to suits by persons other than
taxpayers) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``9 months'' and inserting
``2 years'', and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``9-month'' and inserting
``2-year''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to--
(1) levies made after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and
(2) levies made on or before such date if the 9-month
period has not expired under section 6343(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (without regard to this section) as of
such date.

SEC. 12. INDIVIDUALS HELD HARMLESS ON WRONGFUL LEVY, ETC., ON
INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--Section 6343 (relating to authority to
release levy and return property) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f) Individuals Held Harmless on Wrongful Levy, etc. on
Individual Retirement Plan.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that an
individual retirement plan has been levied upon in a case to
which subsection (b) or (d)(2)(A) applies, an amount equal to
the sum of--
``(A) the amount of money returned by the Secretary on
account of such levy, and
``(B) interest paid under subsection (c) on such amount of
money,

may be deposited into such individual retirement plan or any
other individual retirement plan (other than an endowment
contract) to which a rollover from the plan levied upon is
permitted. An amount may not be deposited into a Roth IRA
under the preceding sentence unless the individual retirement
plan levied upon was a Roth IRA at the time of such levy.
``(2) Treatment as rollover.--If amounts are deposited into
an individual retirement plan under paragraph (1) not later
than the 60th day after the date on which the individual
receives the amounts under paragraph (1)--
``(A) such deposit shall be treated as a rollover described
in section 408(d)(3)(A)(i),
``(B) to the extent the deposit includes interest paid
under subsection (c), such interest shall not be includible
in gross income, and
``(C) such deposit shall not be taken into account under
section 408(d)(3)(B).
For purposes of subparagraph (B), an amount shall be treated
as interest only to the extent that the amount deposited
exceeds the amount of the levy.
``(3) Refund, etc., of income tax on levy.--If any amount
is includible in gross income for a taxable year by reason of
a levy referred to in paragraph (1) and any portion of such
amount is treated as a rollover under paragraph (2), any tax
imposed by chapter 1 on such portion shall not be assessed,
and if assessed shall be abated, and if collected shall be
credited or refunded as an overpayment made on the due date
for filing the return of tax for such taxable year.
``(4) Interest.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), interest
shall be allowed under subsection (c) in a case in which the
Secretary makes a determination described in subsection
(d)(2)(A) with respect to a levy upon an individual
retirement plan.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid under subsections (b), (c), and
(d)(2)(A) of section 6343 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 13. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT.

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

``SEC. 7529. NOTIFICATION OF SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT.

``If, in the course of an investigation under the internal
revenue laws, the Secretary determines that there was or may
have been an unauthorized use of the identity of the taxpayer
or a dependent of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall, to the
extent permitted by law--
``(1) as soon as practicable and without jeopardizing such
investigation, notify the taxpayer of such determination, and
``(2) if any person is criminally charged by indictment or
information with respect to such unauthorized use, notify
such taxpayer as soon as practicable of such charge.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
77 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 7529. Notification of suspected identity theft.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to determinations made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 14. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO PRIVATE DEBT
COLLECTION CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 64 is amended by
striking section 6306.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subchapter B of chapter 76 is amended by striking
section 7433A.
(2) Section 7811 is amended by striking subsection (g).
(3) Section 1203 of the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring Act of 1998 is amended by striking subsection
(e).
(4) The table of sections for subchapter A of chapter 64 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 6306.
(5) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 76 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 7433A.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception for existing contracts, etc.--The amendments
made by this section shall not apply to any contract which
was entered into before March 1, 2008, and is not renewed or
extended on or after such date.
(3) Unauthorized contracts and extensions treated as
void.--Any qualified tax collection contract (as defined in
section 6306 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in
effect before its repeal) which is entered into on or after
March 1, 2008, and any extension or renewal on or after such
date of any qualified tax collection contract (as so
defined), shall be void.

SEC. 15. CLARIFICATION OF IRS UNCLAIMED REFUND AUTHORITY.

Paragraph (1) of section 6103(m) (relating to tax refunds)
is amended by inserting ``, and through any other means of
mass communication,'' after ``media''.

SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON MISUSE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
NAMES AND SYMBOLS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 333 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``Internet domain
address,'' after ``solicitation,'' both places it appears.
(b) Penalty for Misuse by Electronic Means.--Subsections
(c)(2) and (d)(1) of section 333 of such Code are each
amended by inserting ``or any other mass communications by
electronic means,'' after ``telecast,''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 17. SUBSTANTIATION OF AMOUNTS PAID OR DISTRIBUTED OUT OF
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 223(f) (relating
to amounts used for qualified medical expenses) is amended by
inserting ``(and, in the case of amounts paid or distributed
after December 31, 2010, substantiated in a manner similar to
the substantiation required for flexible spending
arrangements)'' after ``account beneficiary''.
(b) Reports.--Subsection (h) of section 223 (relating to
reports) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
(2) by moving the text of subparagraphs (A) and (B) (as so
redesignated) and the last sentence 2 ems to the right,
(3) by striking ``(h) Reports.--The Secretary may require--
'' and inserting the following:
``(h) Reports.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require--'', and

[[Page 6033]]

(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Relating to substantiation.--Not later than January
15 of each calendar year after 2011, the trustee of a health
savings account shall make a report regarding such account to
the Secretary and the account beneficiary setting forth--
``(A) the name, address, and identifying number of the
account beneficiary, and
``(B) the amount paid or distributed out of such account
for the preceding calendar year not substantiated in
accordance with subsection (f)(1).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to amounts paid or distributed out
of health savings accounts after December 31, 2010.

SEC. 18. CERTAIN DOMESTICALLY CONTROLLED FOREIGN PERSONS
PERFORMING SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT WITH UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT TREATED AS AMERICAN
EMPLOYERS.

(a) FICA Taxes.--Section 3121 (relating to definitions) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(z) Treatment of Certain Foreign Persons as American
Employers.--
``(1) In general.--If any employee of a foreign person is
performing services in connection with a contract between the
United States Government (or any instrumentality thereof) and
any member of any domestically controlled group of entities
which includes such foreign person, such foreign person shall
be treated for purposes of this chapter as an American
employer with respect to such services performed by such
employee.
``(2) Domestically controlled group of entities.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `domestically controlled group
of entities' means a controlled group of entities the common
parent of which is a domestic corporation.
``(B) Controlled group of entities.--The term `controlled
group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations
as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--
``(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at
least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
``(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to
subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.

A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation)
shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of
entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of
section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any
entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this
sentence).
``(3) Liability of common parent.--In the case of a foreign
person who is a member of any domestically controlled group
of entities, the common parent of such group shall be jointly
and severally liable for any tax under this chapter for which
such foreign person is liable by reason of this subsection,
and for any penalty imposed on such person by this title with
respect to any failure to pay such tax or to file any return
or statement with respect to such tax or wages subject to
such tax. No deduction shall be allowed under this title for
any liability imposed by the preceding sentence.
``(4) Coordination.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
services which are covered by an agreement under subsection
(l).
``(5) Cross reference.--For relief from taxes in cases
covered by certain international agreements, see sections
3101(c) and 3111(c).''.
(b) Social Security Benefits.--Subsection (e) of section
210 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(e)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(e) The term'' and inserting ``(e)(1) The
term'',
(2) by redesignating clauses (1) through (6) as clauses (A)
through (F), respectively, and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2)(A) If any employee of a foreign person is performing
services in connection with a contract between the United
States Government (or any instrumentality thereof) and any
member of any domestically controlled group of entities which
includes such foreign person, such foreign person shall be
treated as an American employer with respect to such services
performed by such employee.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The term `domestically controlled group of entities'
means a controlled group of entities the common parent of
which is a domestic corporation.
``(ii) The term `controlled group of entities' means a
controlled group of corporations as defined in section
1563(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except
that--
``(I) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at
least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
``(II) the determination shall be made without regard to
subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563 of such Code.

SEC. 19. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAX.

The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased
by 0.25 percentage points.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, on Tax Day, it is so important that we bring H.R. 5719
to the floor of the House. Taxpayers must be treated fairly, and they
deserve all the help we can give them.
This bill draws, in part, on legislation authored by myself and many
members of the Ways and Means Committee. Most of the pieces of this
bill enjoy bipartisan support.
This bill will assist victims of identity theft and prevent the
misuse of the IRS name in schemes that defraud the public.
The bill helps low-income taxpayers by allowing IRS employees to
refer them to low-income taxpayer clinics, expanding earned income tax
credit outreach, and authorizing funding for low-income taxpayer
programs.
It would, once and for all, repeal the authority of the IRS to enter
into private debt collection contracts. This program violates the
public trust and must end.
The bill also protects elderly and disabled persons from tax
liability on workers provided to them under government programs.
H.R. 5719 enhances the fairness of our tax code and deserves this
House's total support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Today is Tax Day, Madam Speaker, and all across the country, millions
of Americans will wait patiently, or not so patiently, in line at the
local post office, making sure that their taxes are postmarked by the
midnight deadline.
Having recently struggled through the process of filling out my own
tax forms, I share the frustrations of millions of American taxpayers,
not just with the amount of taxes that we have to pay, but with the
dizzying maze of forms, worksheets and calculations required by the IRS
as well.
But instead of working together in a bipartisan way to simplify the
process and enhance taxpayers rights, the majority has chosen to bring
forward a partisan, political bill that has already drawn a veto threat
from the administration, and is almost certainly ``dead on arrival'' in
the other body.
To be sure, this legislation does contain a number of positive, pro-
taxpayer provisions, most of which have already passed the House last
year in an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis as part of H.R. 1677.
Unfortunately for this House, and for taxpayers across the country, the
majority has now abandoned that commonsense bipartisan approach that we
brought to last year's bill.
Instead the majority has included a pair of highly controversial
proposals that kill any hope of bipartisan cooperation, one imposing a
new substantiation requirements on withdrawals from health savings
accounts, and another cutting off the ability of carefully selected
private businesses to assist the IRS in collecting delinquent tax debt.
Over the course of today's debate, we'll hear much more about the
concerns that many Members have about the HSA provision, a provision
that was not subject to a single hearing in the Ways and Means
Committee, and was inserted into the bill just prior to mark-up without
any real understanding of the potential consequences.
So let me take a moment to focus on the other provision of concern,
the proposal to repeal the IRS's authority to work with private
collection agencies to ensure that acknowledged tax debt is actually
paid.
For some Members of this body on both sides of the debate, this
particular issue is simple and is simply about policy. For them, it's
an abstract question about whether these private collection agencies,
so called PCAs, should be

[[Page 6034]]

able to play a limited supplementary role in ensuring that undisputed
tax debts are, in fact, paid.
As we debate this particular issue yet again this afternoon, we'll
hear again persuasive evidence making clear just how successful the PCA
program has already been in narrowing the tax gap, and while carefully
protecting taxpayers rights. And we will also hear how much additional
promise this program holds for the future if it's allowed to continue.
But for me and the area I represent, Western New York, the issue is
much more than an abstract policy debate. It's also about jobs. As the
Member of Congress who represents rural Wyoming County in Western New
York, I'm actually more familiar than most Members with the work that
PCAs do. After all, the largest single private employer in Wyoming
County, Pioneer Credit Recovery, is one of the only two companies
nationwide that the IRS has selected to help get this important program
underway.
Madam Speaker, Pioneer Credit is a highly respected local business
that has created more than 1,400 high-paying jobs for families living
in either my district or neighboring districts around Buffalo and
Rochester. And as my fellow Members of Western New York's Congressional
Delegation know, these jobs have been created in a region that has
faced serious economic challenges.
This IRS contract has allowed Pioneer Credit to turn an empty
warehouse in Perry, New York into a thriving job center for newly hired
employees. In short, it's been a great economic success story in part
of Western New York that has desperately needed it.
As someone who fought to give the IRS the authority to partner with
these private companies in the first place, I am deeply troubled that
the new majority is once again threatening to deauthorize this
important program just as it's getting underway.
If this program is allowed to continue, Pioneer Credit will have the
opportunity to compete for future IRS contracts that could create many
additional jobs in the area of Western New York that I represent.
Killing this program, on the other hand, would cost my constituents
real jobs at a time when Congress should be working to expand
employment opportunities, particularly in hard-hit areas that are
struggling economically.
I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that under the Democrats
convoluted PAYGO rules, proposals that reduce anticipated Federal
revenues must be offset by other provisions that raise revenue. As a
result, today's proposal to eliminate the PCA program, a program that
is currently expected to bring in more than a half billion dollars to
the Federal Treasury, over the next decade, also requires them to raise
Federal revenue or taxes by the same amount somewhere else. That's
right. The majority is raising taxes by a half a billion dollars today
in order to eliminate the very program that's helping us to collect
undisputed tax debts, more effectively. Only in Washington, Madam
Speaker, only in Washington.
This bill is wrong on policy, it's wrong on job creation and it's on
the way to mark April 15 for America's hard-working taxpayers.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Georgia and thank him for
his leadership on this important issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. It's a set of commonsense
reforms designed to make the Tax Code a little more consumer friendly
for hardworking Americans.
If the IRS has reason to believe that you've been a victim of
identity theft, this bill says the IRS should let you know.
If you're entitled to an unclaimed refund, this bill empowers the IRS
to do more to find you.
And if you need help with your taxes, this bill lets the IRS refer
you to a qualified taxpayer clinic that can provide assistance.
So whether it's from eliminating nuisance paperwork to publicizing
the earned income tax credit to clamping down on predatory ``refund
anticipation loans,'' this bill, time and again, sides with the
taxpayer.
I'm particularly pleased that it includes legislation many of us have
worked on to end the practice of bounty hunting and terminate the
program of contracting out the collection of taxes to private debt
collectors.
Proponents of this program say it's necessary to close the tax gap.
The facts just say they're wrong. The program, to date, hasn't returned
a single dime of additional revenue to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, so
far as we gather here today, it's been a revenue loser, an ideological
driven black hole that has sucked $50 million out of the Treasury last
year alone. And we would have been able to raise, and this is according
to both Republican and IRS commissioners, we would have been able to
raise $1.4 billion in revenue from people who hadn't paid taxes if we'd
simply hired more IRS agents to do the job. And that's also the
testimony of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the Department of
Treasury. That's the person whose job it is to look out for the
taxpayers, and she testified this is a bad deal for taxpayers. We
should get rid of it.
And we shouldn't be surprised. We had a similar program in the 1990s
that was ended because of abusive practices, and it failed to collect
the money. Let's learn from history. Let's adopt this legislation.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague on the Ways and Mean Committee from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), an
expert on HSAs and other matters for consideration today.

{time} 1645

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, why are we here? We're here
because it's Tax Day and the majority decided they had to have a tax
bill to come to the floor to pass on Tax Day.
There are some good provisions in this bill. I want to talk about one
provision that is not a good provision. That's what we call HSA
substantiation. What that basically means is without a single hearing,
the majority wants to bring these new red-taped complicated rules to
health savings accounts so that every time somebody goes and makes a
health care purchase that's under the deductible, they have to first
get permission from their banker or from the government before they do
it. That's essentially what substantiation does.
Now, we've heard from banks, from the credit unions, from the NFIB
and the small businesses. They're all saying, we're not going to do it
anymore. We're not going to offer HSAs to our clients.
Madam Speaker, the key with health savings accounts is that people
can save tax free for their out-of-pocket health care savings. Why on
earth would we want to bring a bill to the floor which we know will
reduce the use of health savings accounts?
The goal of this Congress ought to be to make health care more
accessible and more affordable. Unfortunately, this bill goes in the
wrong direction. So we want to inflict all of this red tape that we
don't inflict on individual retirement accounts or on home equity lines
of credits on this, and this will make it harder for people to save tax
free for health care. It will tie them up in red tape. It will say to
the banks and credit unions that offer these things, don't offer them
anymore, and more to the point, we're doing this clumsy legislating
without having had one hearing in the Ways and Means Committee.
More to the point, Madam Speaker, is this. The market is already
fulfilling the need to have better recordkeeping. The market is already
showing us they can do this without this law. But if you impose this
law, as this bill does, guess what's going to happen? People in rural
America, people in some small towns, people in Janesville, Wisconsin,
they won't be able to subscribe to this law. Their retailers don't have
the technology that's being required here. So

[[Page 6035]]

you're going to leave rural America, small town America out, and only
urban areas can comply with this.
This is not good legislating. This has not been seen through. No
foresight. No hearings. More to the point, it's going to make it harder
for people in rural and small towns to save tax tree for health care.
It's going to make it harder for anybody to save tax free for health
care. This is going to raise health care costs, and it is going to make
it harder for patients to really get control of their health care
destiny.
And that is why this bill should be defeated. For this piece of
policy alone, this bill should be defeated because it was not thought
through. It was slammed in there at the last minute, and that is enough
of a reason that on this day, on Tax Day, we should not be telling the
American people, we're going to raise your taxes if you want to go buy
health care. That's wrong, but that's what this bill does; and I think
we should reject this bill for that reason alone.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a wonderful friend who is a
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from
Georgia's leadership of the Oversight Subcommittee on the Ways and
Means Committee.
A couple of things to respond to.
The matter before us involves a pay-for, because unlike much of the
work of my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, this
majority pays for things that cost the Treasury.
Now, the HSA issue he just raised involves tax-free accounts and
savings accounts to be used for health care. We ask that there be some
verification to show the money withdrawn was spent for health care.
That's all. What drives us to this is a report that we had from one
account manager that shows these funds being withdrawn for everything
from body shop repair to fast food restaurants.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. Sure I will yield.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. As the gentleman knows, this is their money,
and if they choose to withdraw their money for non-health care reasons,
they pay taxes.
Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I only have 2 minutes, this HSA,
I believe the gentleman would agree, in fact I think he said it in his
comments, is for the cost of health care. It gives a tax incentive
cost, a tax assistance to taxpayers for health care costs, not for body
shop costs. We don't tax incent body shop costs. So we would like to
shut that abuse down.
The question is legitimately raised. Is this too onerous? Absolutely
not. Many of us have flex savings accounts that are used for medical
costs. Now, all we ask is that the same verification any Federal
employee uses when they make a withdrawal in their flex savings account
would be used to substantiate withdrawal from the health savings
account. This isn't inventing something new. We've done it. It works
well.
Another feature of the bill that's drawn such objection is this
business of putting out of business the whole notion of private bill
collectors being loosed on our taxpayers to collect revenues owed the
Federal Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional minute.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I refer my colleagues to the Washington
Post, the front page story today, ``Collectors cost IRS more than they
raise.''
We have had, in fact, kind of the bill collection version of the $600
toilet seat for the old Pentagon contract procurements. This was
advertised to cost very little, $10 to $14 million, well now up to $70
million and counting, a multiple of what was initially advertised.
That's the set-up cost. They said it was going to bring all of this
money. Well, the reality is it has brought in only a fraction of the
money advertised.
And so on a net basis, this whole initiative to bring in money owed
us has cost us money. We've been shipping more money to contractors.
This is an administration and this is a minority that loves private
contractors. And if it costs the Federal Government on the net balance,
it doesn't matter because they just so ideologically love private
contractors.
We should pass this bill and end this failed experiment of private
debt collection.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I've been listening to some of my
colleagues, and I'm sure we'll have more on the Democratic side of the
aisle that have been such proponents of doing away with the collection.
I just want to remind some of them of a couple of things that we should
look at.
First, this is money that the IRS will not go after. It is part of
the goal that Congress said we will pursue to get this money, and it
was going to show a $1 billion over 10-year revenue.
Now, we have seen the start-up of PCAs, one in Iowa and one in New
York, after a very clear scrutiny by the IRS and by strong oversight of
the Congress. And there are start-up costs of the $50 million, as we're
beginning to see the program come under way, to pursue money that the
IRS either hasn't collected, can't collect, will not collect as the
PCAs are pursuing it.
And I have listened to a lot of people describe what they think they
understand of a PCA, but they have never really been in tune with it.
It kind of reminds me of somebody debating ATM legislation and never
actually used an ATM.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior member
of the Ways and Means Committee from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, as Americans send their checks to the IRS
today, they have a number of concerns. There are the dozens of tax
provisions that expired last year and have not yet been extended adding
to economic uncertainty. There is the inefficiency of many Federal
agencies resulting in waste of hard-earned tax dollars, and there are
the entitlement programs that threaten to double the Federal tax burden
over the coming decades if they are not reformed. All of these issues
Congress should be considering this Tax Day.
One complaint I have never heard from my constituents is that the IRS
doesn't ask them for enough information. Yet the legislation before us
would impose burdensome new reporting requirements on 5 million
Americans with health savings accounts. Although Congress has held no
hearings to determine whether misuse of HSA funds is a real problem,
these requirements would make HSAs less convenient for consumers and
could lead financial institutions to stop offering HSAs.
Ironically, this bill would also repeal a program that collects bad
tax debts. The majority's message seems to be that if you're not paying
your taxes, we will let you off the hook, but if you follow the rules,
we will increase your burden of compliance.
Madam Speaker, that is the wrong message to send this Tax Day. I urge
a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, no one on this side of the aisle
is suggesting that we all shouldn't pay our fair share.
Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Emanuel), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, to pick up on my colleague's comments
about fairness, one of the provisions in this legislation deals with
closing the loophole for KBR, a former Halliburton subsidiary, that
used the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes. And that is, it was
discovered that in fact KBR, they're a company that was doing its
operations in Iraq, was not paying and consciously set up a company in
the Cayman Islands, just a post office box, set up a company to avoid
paying Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, which is
how they became the low bid.
It is the company, by the way, I'm sure you remember this, that
served contaminated water to our troops, costing the taxpayers more
money to take care of the health of those troops.

[[Page 6036]]

They set up an operation in the Cayman Islands, and in fact, their
post office was Post Office Box 847, One Capital Place, 4th Floor,
Shedden Road, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, KY1-1103. And the reason
they were the low bidder? They didn't pay their fair share.
And the truth is the American people care about two things when it
comes to American taxes: Simplicity of the code and fairness. And this
is an example of the unfairness of our code.
In fact, if you look at the Ugland House in the Cayman Islands, one
building houses 12,000 companies who have established post office boxes
or ZIP codes or modems there, and the only purpose they're there for is
to avoid paying their fair share of their taxes. And one of the pieces
of this legislation is, in fact, to shut down the operation so
companies cannot get contracts doing government work here in the United
States, paid for by the taxpayers, whose sole purpose is to avoid
paying their fair share.
The company acknowledges that the reason they set up the Cayman
Islands was so they didn't pay Social Security, they didn't pay
unemployment, they didn't pay Medicare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. EMANUEL. And the way this was discovered was on a worker who was
laid off with 10,000 employees, went to go collect unemployment
insurance and was told no, you don't have the money for that because
you didn't pay insurance. He said no, I work for an American company,
and then discovered, in fact, he didn't work for an American company.
KBR was a company set up in the Cayman Islands for the purpose of
avoiding paying their fair share of taxes, and it is right here on
April 15, when Americans are facing bigger tax bills, higher costs for
health care, higher costs for education, higher costs for gasoline,
that in fact those companies that are servicing in Iraq pay their fair
share and not use the tax code to avoid their responsibility.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Health Committee of
Ways and Means from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, here we are on Tax Day, April 15, talking about a bill
called the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. A great title,
but this bill falls remarkably short.
What this Congress should be debating today is legislation to
simplify and reform the tax code. The tax code is over 67,000 pages
long. It takes taxpayers 6 billion hours and over $260 billion to
comply with current tax laws. That's unacceptable.
Instead of this bill, Congress needs to pass legislation to make
filing tax returns simpler and fairer. While more and more Americans
are demanding Congress make our tax laws easier to comply with, the
Ways and Means Committee has held only one hearing on tax reform since
the beginning of last year.
And just as the economy struggles in the face of problems in the
housing and the credit markets, rising gas and food prices and an up-
take on employment, the House Democrat budget proposes to hit families
with the largest tax increase in history.

{time} 1700

Instead of reforming the Tax Code and lowering the tax burden, the
bill before us ignores both those questions. And while there are some
good provisions in it, like I support the provision that no longer
requires employees to keep track of the cell phone calls they make on
their office cell phones, other measures in the bill make it
objectionable.
I reject the majority's attempts to impose new administrative burdens
on the use of health savings accounts. Millions of Americans are
enrolled in HSAs because they provide consumers with the ability to
affordably manage their own health care costs. H.R. 5719 will make it
harder for people to save for their own health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. HSAs already have a built-in enforcement
mechanism that seeks to ensure HSA funds are spent on qualified medical
expenses. If a person spends those dollars on a nonqualified expense,
they're subject to individual income taxes and a 10 percent penalty.
The IRS also has the right to audit HSA withdrawals.
Americans are concerned about the cost of health care. Before
Congress rushes to impose new burdens on HSAs, the one innovation that
helps patient-centered, individual health care, helps individuals take
control of their health care, we should find out first if there really
is a problem, and then, how we can fix it without restricting the
ability of consumers to take greater control of their health care
decision making.
I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I find no small amount of irony listening to our friends from the
other side of the aisle talk about complexity on Tax Day because for
the 12 years that they were in charge there was an explosion, hundreds
of thousands of additional words added to the IRS code; loopholes and
complexity, not simplification.
It is absolute hogwash that there are areas that the IRS won't go
after to collect and we have to use private collection agencies. They
are the people who decided to underfund the IRS. Testimony before our
committee was conclusive: The IRS-trained employees collect eight times
as much per person as these bounty hunters that they contract out. With
the minimum of a $70 million investment, we will raise over $1.4
billion.
Equally specious is the argument here that we're hearing about HSAs.
There are millions of Americans who have benefits, as my good friend
from North Dakota pointed out, flexible savings accounts. We have them
for our Federal employees. And all they have to do, however, is there
is some minimal verification. What they're proposing is that we just
ignore it and allow people to use it for car washes and country club
memberships and rely on an occasional audit, which is much more
difficult because they have cut back on the IRS. That's foolish. It
works for millions of Americans with flexible benefit accounts, there's
no problem doing it with HSAs.
It is time for us to move forward with these simple, commonsense
efforts, steps that make the IRS more effective. More money for the
taxpayers prevents inappropriate use of tax exempt money.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 15 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Well, I just want to make sure at least the taxpayers from the
countryside I come from realize that H.R. 5719, which we're
considering, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008,
really sounds good. It sounds real good on Tax Day, as I open my
remarks by saying that taxpayers are in line now or will be until
midnight tonight to have a postmarked April 15 date. But we know that
this legislation will face a steep consideration of some saying ``dead
on arrival'' in the other body. We've seen the administration have its
advisers threaten veto. And yet, while there were so many things that
we agreed upon in the Ways and Means Committee, Republicans and
Democrats, we have a bill that brings controversy, that brings another
one-House bill. It gets tough, as we move towards November of an
election year,

[[Page 6037]]

to explain that we didn't get much done, but boy did we have a lot of
action on one-House bills.
I want to just share for the record here on this body what I did in
the Ways and Means hearing. Because I think there's two important
documents that my colleagues, as this debate goes today, and some of
the consideration of what will be difficult on seeing PCAs, as the
legislation may come to pass from this body, we will see difficult
sledding in the other body, as well as the administration, are two
reports.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration wrote one on
March 26, only weeks ago, that had inadequate security controls over
routers and switches that jeopardize sensitive taxpayer information. It
was done by the Inspector General. And I want to just report, because
we had it confirmed by representatives of the administration under our
examination that this, in fact, has occurred and it's in the report
which was submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. And it says,
``Impact to the Taxpayer: Because the IRS sends sensitive taxpayer and
administrative information across its networks, routers on the networks
must have sufficient security controls to deter and detect unauthorized
use. Access controls for IRS routers were not adequate, and reviews to
monitor security configuration changes were not conducted to identify
inappropriate use. A disgruntled employee, contractor or a hacker could
reconfigure routers and switches to disrupt computer operations and
steal taxpayer information in a number of ways, including diverting
information to unauthorized systems.''
Madam Speaker, that same very day, on March 26, the same Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a second report called,
``The Private Collection Agencies Adequately Protected Taxpayer Data.''
And this information also was confirmed under examination as we made
inquiries to the administration that confirmed that the reports exist,
and they were well aware of these findings as well. And on page 2 of
the Inspector General's report it said, ``We reviewed the computer
security controls over taxpayer data provided to the two current
PCAs,'' or private collection agencies for those maybe not following
the debate, ``and determined that the controls were adequate. In
particular, files were securely transmitted from the IRS to the
contractors and adequately secured on the contractor systems. In
addition work stations used by contractor collection personnel were
adequately controlled to prevent unauthorized copying of taxpayer
information to removable media or transfer via e-mail. The contractors
also maintained adequate audit trails and performed periodic reviews,
including reviews to identify unauthorized access to taxpayer data.''
Now, the response from the IRS, contained also on page two of the
Treasury Inspector General said, ``The key IRS management officials
reviewed the report prior to issuance and agreed to the results of the
review.''
We know that in the operation of PCAs, we are going to see the
collection pursuit of $500 million over that over the next 10 years.
And we know that if this legislation prevails, there is going to be a
tax increase of $500 million to pay for this under the majority's PAYGO
rules. And so as we continue the debate, make it clearly understood
that the pursuit of these PCAs was on proceeds that were not collected,
could not be collected, needed to be collected in order to put into the
Treasury this money owed by taxpayers to the government. And that as we
look at this legislation, what has brought the controversy to
uncontroversial legislation, legislation that both parties could agree
to, was the adding of HSA changes and dealing with the PCAs. My
colleagues need to consider the type of consequences we're seeing in
what will be a misguided change on PCA legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, my good friend, Congresswoman
Berkley, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. BERKLEY. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing me.
I don't have any long Treasury reports to read to you, and I'm not
here to tell you what should have been, what we could have done, should
have done, would have done. But I'm here to talk on behalf of H.R. 5719
because there are some important components and provisions of this bill
that, when taken together, will make future tax days more fair and less
strenuous for the average American taxpayer.
H.R. 5719 contains provisions to ensure that taxpayers receive all
the tax benefits they're entitled to. This bill will increase outreach
to help taxpayers benefit from the earned income tax credit and find
unclaimed refunds, effectively lowering taxes for many Americans. I
think this is a good provision.
This bill also prevents the IRS from using private debt collectors to
collect Federal income taxes. Private debt collectors have proven to be
poorly equipped for the job, actually costing the IRS and taxpayers 37
million more than they have collected. This change is an important move
to protect taxpayer privacy. And as a taxpayer and as a citizen, I want
the government and the IRS to do its job and not send this
responsibility out to someone else.
I'm also very supportive of a provision to postpone implementation of
the 3 percent withholding requirement on government payment to vendors.
This requirement will cause significant administrative and financial
burdens on local governments, unfairly penalizing companies, and
raising prices on consumers. I think this is a good provision in this
legislation.
The bill also helps protect taxpayers by requiring the IRS to notify
individuals if unlawful use of their identity is detected by cracking
down on Web sites that try to defraud people through use of the
official IRS logo.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has
expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield the gentlelady 15 seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. All of these taken together aren't earth-shattering and
they're not going to change the way that we collect taxes in this
country, but it's going to help, and it's going to help millions of our
fellow Americans.
On Tax Day, let's pass something and do something positive for the
American people.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, my good friend, Mr. Crowley.
Mr. CROWLEY. I want to thank my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Lewis)
for yielding me this time.
My colleagues, this is a good bill, and I ask all my colleagues to
support this worthy effort.
And Chairman Lewis, I want to thank you personally, and your staff.
You went out of your way to include language that I had concerns of and
wanted to include in this bill to increase the access of eligible
taxpayers to the EITC, the earned income tax credit. So I want to
personally thank you and your staff for your outreach to our office and
including that. Ronald Reagan himself referred to the EITC as the
greatest anti-poverty program in the history of our country, so I think
it deserves worthy bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, we heard in testimony last week in the Committee on
Ways and Means from the Taxpayer Advocate of the United States that
identity fraud against taxpayers is skyrocketing. This bill establishes
some of the strongest protections for taxpayers against identity theft
scams, especially those at greatest risk of fraud, our seniors and
veterans filing this year to claim the economic stimulus rebate check.
But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Republican
colleagues and the Bush Administration, are adamantly opposed to this
taxpayer protection act because they're opposed to the offset that we
provide.

{time} 1715

No one can argue that some of my Republican colleagues
philosophically

[[Page 6038]]

oppose paying for anything and support the continuation of what I
believe was 7 years of Republican economic theory of ``borrow and
spend.'' And in case you're keeping count, the results of the
Republican borrow and spend credit card economic policy is a $30,000
birth tax on every person born in this country today. In fact, in my
own home, it's at $90,000 because I have an 8-, 7-, and 2-year-old. I
can't imagine that they would be very happy if they understood what the
birth tax was that was placed upon them by irresponsible and reckless
fiscal policies over the last 7 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional minute to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, that's why Democrats are trying to be
responsible and we implemented the pay-as-you-go principles, meaning
all new tax cuts and new spending increases need to be paid for as we
move forward.
In regards to the health savings account, I really don't understand
the opposition here. What we're simply asking for is accountability. We
know that health savings accounts have been spent for country club
membership, massage parlors, women's lingerie shops, casinos and
gambling, dating and escort services.
Let's really put this all in perspective. What we're talking about is
accountability in health savings accounts. We're not saying they
shouldn't be used for health purposes, but they should be held
accountable.
People right now, hardworking, honest, faith-loving Americans that
want to donate to a charity or to their church with after-tax payments
have to account for that charitable contribution before they can take a
tax deduction. When it comes to health savings accounts, there is not
that requirement. And we're talking about pretax dollars on health
savings accounts. There's something wrong here. I wish my Republican
colleagues would better understand it. It's simply absurd that they
don't support simple accountability.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. CROWLEY. It is simply absurd to me that my Republican colleagues
can't understand that we're simply asking for accountability, that
we're not looking to eliminate them, that if they are using it for
legitimate health purposes, that's fine.
Now, I did note that the HSA, the Health Savings Account Council,
says that the IRS has the authority to audit these accounts. Are they
suggesting that the IRS audit every health savings account to make sure
that health savings accounts are being used for health reasons? I
daresay that the IRS is looking at probably more often than not the
charitable contributions that hardworking Americans make and making
sure that those are legitimate charities before they're able to deduct
them from their taxes.
So what we are looking for is a little balance here in terms of what
really are legitimate tax savings purposes in health savings accounts.
That's really simply what the Democrats are looking for.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have listened very carefully to my friend and colleague from New
York as he sees his views.
I thought maybe I might for the record just outline that I have a
copy of a letter that numerous groups sent in opposition to this
legislation, primarily due to HSAs, to both Chairman Rangel and Ranking
Member McCrery. And it leads off with the NFIB and goes down to the
National Taxpayers Union, and it has the U.S. Chamber and it has the
Retail Industry Leaders Association, the National Retail Federation,
the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of
Manufacturers, and so many others. And I will make it available in case
some of my colleagues haven't seen it.
This isn't something Republicans on this side of the aisle just kind
of dreamed up that there are problems that make this legislation
controversial with HSA legislation or with the PCAs. It's well
documented by the experts that are using the program.
I also think, rather than some of my colleagues interpreting what the
administration may have for support or rejection of the legislation,
maybe I should read into the Record exactly what the Statement of
Administration Policy is on H.R. 5719 so that we all know what the
administration's concerns are.
And for the record: ``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719,
the so-called `Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008.' The
bill includes provisions that would impose new administrative burdens
on the trustees of health savings accounts. These new burdens on HSA
administrators are unnecessary for efficient tax administration,
inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their
inception, and could undermine efforts by employers, individuals, and
insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health outcomes by
empowering consumers to take greater control of health care decision
making. If H.R. 5719 were presented to the President with these
provisions, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.
``Also, the administration strongly opposes provisions of the bill
that would repeal the current statutory authorization for the Internal
Revenue Service private debt collection program. As of February 2008,
over 98,000 cases have been referred to contractors, representing over
$910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program would
result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the next 10 years,
according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. These are tax
dollars that are legally owed to the government and are otherwise very
unlikely to be collected by the IRS due to workload demands. As noted
in previous Statements of Administration Policy, the administration
strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not consistent
with the administration's commitment to a balanced approach toward
improving taxpayer compliance and collecting outstanding tax
liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to the President with these
provisions, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the
bill.''
That is a Statement of Administration Policy on the record relative
to this.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I now would yield to my colleague from New York for a
question.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I note that the gentleman made reference to the fact
that the legislation, or at least the interpretation of the
administration, that the legislation places onerous responsibilities on
the trustees of the HSAs.
Where in the legislation does it say that?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I will ask you to look that up, and at a later
time I will yield and you can point it out in my record.
Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. REYNOLDS. One more time.
Mr. CROWLEY. I just would point to the record that, in fact, it is
not the responsibility of the trustees but of the individual who opens
an HSA account that we're placing the burden on, that they prove that
the HSA account is for legitimate medical purposes.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman.
I just think it's important we look at this. First, I heard the
debate coming from the majority, from the gentleman, that outlined his
interpretation of why the administration was opposed to the bill. I
listened carefully. I made a decision to read into the Record exactly
what the administration's policy position was on this so that it was no
longer an interpretation from a Member of Congress but exactly in
written word what the administration said relative to this bill.
And I think while we're looking at other aspects of this legislation,
we do know the following: That the administration is going to veto this
legislation, that we also know it has difficult

[[Page 6039]]

sledding in the other body. And it has in the past because there's a
track record, that it appears just with PCA alone, let alone some of
the concerns that have been put forth in the letter that I read from
earlier on HSAs, that we now have another one-House bill being trumped
up and laid out on Tax Day.
And I will say the majority is superb in showmanship. We seem to be
able to move legislation to the floor on significant days. Today is tax
legislation on Tax Day, April 15.
But I also know that the public is not going to be confused by the
fact that while we trump up an extravaganza of legislation on special
days, today tax legislation on April 15, that the voters are going to
take a real hard look at what really got done, what has gotten through,
what was made better for America. And, again, we have another one-House
bill that just, sadly, had too much partisanship in it and fell away.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would like to note that the
NFIB has endorsed and supported H.R. 5719. Passage of H.R. 5719 will be
considered a key vote for the NFIB.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the chairman for the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5719, the
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008.
Let me tell my colleagues that this bill simply closes a lot of
loopholes that were created when my Republican friends controlled this
Congress in the majority years ago and it also addresses some of the
disastrous Bush administration policies that were adopted by my friends
the Republicans when they were in the majority. But they're no longer
in the majority this year.
Let me tell you what this is all about. My Republican friends and the
Bush administration love to privatize. They wanted to privatize Social
Security. Remember that? They wanted to privatize prescription drugs,
and they got away with it, and that's why it's so expensive and
convoluted. They wanted to privatize health care at Walter Reed
Hospital, and you know the disasters that happened there. Trying to
privatize the delivery of the United States mail; privatize security in
Iraq by letting private contractors handle these things for the U.S.
Army. Blackwater and Halliburton, sound familiar?
Well, one of the things that this bill that we're passing today in
the House will do will be to eliminate one of the disastrous Bush and
Republican policies that they inserted in a 2004 bill. That policy was
where they slashed the number of IRS tax collectors, and then they
said, oh, my gosh, we can't collect enough taxes; so you know what
we'll do? We'll privatize the collection of taxes. This was after they
removed the number of IRS tax collectors. They said we'll hire private
folks to collect taxes, but we'll pay them eight times more than it
would cost a Federal Government employee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentleman.
So can you imagine, Madam Speaker, they slashed IRS collectors from
people who owed taxes, slashed the tax collectors, and wanted to
privatize it and pay eight times more to their friends in private
industry to do it. Eight times more. It only took now when the
Democrats are in control of the House that we are able now to pass this
bill today to end that program.
And when my friend from New York on the other side of the aisle says,
well, you know, it's only a one-House bill because the Senate won't
approve this, ask yourself why that is. Because there are only 51
Democrat Senators in the Senate, and you need 60 votes in the Senate to
overcome a filibuster. We only have 51 Democrats in the Senate. We
can't get 9 Republicans to get rid of this ridiculously wasteful
program of privatizing tax collection. So it's like that terrible story
of the kid who kills his parents and pleads for mercy from the Court
because he's an orphan. They slashed the tax collectors. Then they gave
it to their cronies. Now they say they can't get Republicans to help us
fix this problem that they created. Fortunately, the House has a
majority that will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30
seconds.
Mr. ROTHMAN. So do you get, my colleagues, the hypocrisy? They
slashed the tax collectors, paid eight times more to this private
contractor cronies, and then when we get a Democratic majority in the
House to pass this to eliminate this wasteful program, they say it
won't pass the Senate. Because the Republicans in the Senate won't do
it, and we need them to add up to the 60 votes to avoid the Republican
filibuster, which they expect to do, to filibuster getting rid of this
privatization of tax collection.
I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I think I heard my colleague when he
said that Democrats are in the majority in this body, Democrats are in
the majority in the other body, but it's the Republicans' fault that
this legislation isn't going to happen.
Now, I have explained a lot of tough, challenging things to my
constituents, but I don't think they're going to buy that. It's just
another one-House bill that is going to the other body and going to see
death. It isn't going to see the light of day.

{time} 1730

Now, moving to my colleague from New York who asked me the question.
I didn't think I could provide the answer to his question quite as soon
as I could, and saving him looking it up, because I assume as he went
off the floor, he might be looking up this. I want to go back again to
the statement of administration policy. The bill includes provisions
that would impose new administrative burdens on the trustees of health
savings accounts. That is what the administration said in their veto
threat.
Now on the bill as reported out of committee by the majority, page
22, line 7, 8 and 9 to my colleagues, says the trustee of the health
savings account shall make a report regarding such account to the
Secretary and account beneficiary setting forth. So I want everyone to
know, including my colleague who asked the question, it is clear in
your bill that you set forth that the HSA trustees would have new
administrative burdens.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Financial Services
Committee, my friend, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. To my distinguished colleague from Georgia, I
want to commend you on your excellent leadership on this very, very
important and timely piece of legislation. A lot has been said here
today. The two points of contention that the other side has brought
have been in two areas. And let me just speak to those directly so that
we can get to the facts of the matter.
Now the other side says that they are opposed to the health savings
accounts compliance. Now, what we are saying on our side is this: The
health savings accounts are set up for the purpose of helping our
constituents with health care services. Now if that is the case, then
it is very important that we set up a mechanism so that we can check
the abuses of that. They are not set up for them to go and to use those
accounts for massage parlors, for country clubs, for other issues and
areas, and escort services.
So it is important for us to be able to simply do this. The bill
simply requires the reporting of a holder of the health service account
of any funds used for nonhealth care purposes in order to reduce the
tax gap. That's simple.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the American people are holding on by
their fingernails in this terrible economy. And you may laugh and scorn
about this being April 15. Of course it

[[Page 6040]]

is April 15. And it is a day that the American people's minds are
totally focused on their personal finances. And it is important that
this House of Representatives respond in a way that responds to that
interest. And so we are closing the gap.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield an
additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. So it is very important. And let me get to the
other area very quickly, and that is the area of these private
contractors. We have received complaint after complaint after complaint
from your constituents and our constituents who have been abused by
calls. Let me give you one example of an elderly couple that was called
150 times, Madam Speaker, including five times in one day, asking for a
taxpayer. And it comes to find out that they are innocent.
Again, the GAO found out that debt collectors were placing over 1
million calls to innocent people just to reach 35,000 taxpayers. The
Federal Trade Commission had 130 complaints as of last year giving
unaccountable private tax collectors the right to look into and examine
personal financial information of our taxpayers. It is wrong.
Now let me tell you this, that the commissioner of the IRS himself,
Mr. Douglas Sherman, has asked for this legislation. Madam Speaker, I
just simply say that if the IRS is asking for this, that they could do
a better job, they are the ones who we are holding responsible. We
should make sure we pass this legislation and let the IRS do their job
of collecting the taxes and not hand it off to these private bounty
hunters.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire on the amount of time
left, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The distinguished gentleman from New York
has 1 minute remaining. The distinguished gentleman from Georgia has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from North Dakota, (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I want to begin my remarks by commending the fine job Mr. Reynolds
has done today. He has indicated that this legislation uniquely affects
him because many of the people at the Pioneer Call Center, a private
debt collector hired to collect this debt, are in his district. And I
think we all recognize he has done a fine job in fighting for that
business activity in his district today. He has given it everything he
has, and I commend him for the job he has done.
But the reality in the policy context is summed up in a simple
headline in today's Washington Post, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than
They Raise.'' Why in the world would we want to continue with an
arrangement like that? But there are many other parts of this bill that
are simplifying the process and are helpful to taxpayers. And that is
why we have the support of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers
and Treasurers, the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Citizens for Tax Justice, National Consumer League, Consumer
Federation of America, and a late-breaking one. In fact, this
organization has been mentioned on both lists, the NFIB.
Mr. Reynolds has indicated they were opposed to the bill. This is
probably a development that broke later than Mr. Reynolds' information.
But in fact, they are for the bill and indicate in a ``key vote alert''
that they will be scoring this as a key vote. They indicate that the
``provisions in this legislation seek to enact simpler tax rules and
reduce the paperwork burden associated with tax compliance.''
They talk about a few provisions. One of them is that right now we
have an onerous paperwork requirement on employers providing cell
phones to employees for business purposes. I commend my Republican
colleague on Ways and Means, Sam Johnson, for bringing this to our
attention. I was pleased to cosponsor legislation with him now included
in the bill that makes this paperwork requirement go away.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North Dakota
has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And so including the Pomeroy-Johnson or the Johnson-Pomeroy bill in
this I think was an important feature to the NFIB deliberation that
this is indeed lessening paperwork requirements on small employers, and
therefore they support it. They do cite a couple of other provisions,
another provision of this legislation amending a recent change to the
Tax Code that helps tax preparers better assist their clients by
changing an established higher standard of reporting for preparers.
That creates a potential conflict of interest between clients and
themselves. That is addressed in this legislation.
And they also talk about the legislation including a 1-year delay of
the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement by Federal,
State and local governments on payments for goods and services which
puts both an administrative burden on all parties involved and a strain
on the daily operating cash flow of small businesses. There are other
provisions, as well, but I appreciate the NFIB's laying them out as
they have done on this letter.
In balance, this is a bill designed to help taxpayers. That is why we
passed it out of the Ways and Means Committee. That is why it is before
us on Tax Day. We urge its adoption.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman
is. I would proceed and then have you close if you are ready.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, we are ready to close.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia who has done a
magnificent job of managing his time, and I've enjoyed working with
him.
Madam Speaker, today represents yet another missed opportunity on the
floor of this House. We could have approached the issues of taxpayer
rights and tax simplification in a bipartisan way just as we did last
year. But with the election season now in full swing, the majority
seems more interested in staging political theater than in actually
getting something done for hardworking, middle-class taxpayers. This
House and this country deserve more, especially on April 15, Tax Day. I
urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York. I enjoyed working with him on this bill. There being no
more speakers, I will close, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 5719 is good. It is good. It is good for the
taxpayers. And today, when so many people are filing their tax return,
we should let them know that we are looking out for them, giving them
protections they need and support that they deserve.
This is a good bill. This is a necessary bill.
The private debt collection program is an insult to the American
taxpayers and our Federal tax system. It violates the public trust, and
this bill will bring it to an end. It must end.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, today the House considers
legislation related to the burdens placed on everyday taxpayers--the
Taxpayer Assistance & Simplification Act. This bill includes a number
of good provisions, of which I am supportive. However, the bill also
includes a provision which would cost Eastern Iowa hundreds of jobs.
While there are various, well-thought-out taxpayer protections in this
bill, they do not outweigh the negative impact this bill would have on
jobs in the First District. For this reason, I intend to oppose H.R.
5719.
Currently, the Internal Revenue Service is allowed to contract with
outside agencies for assistance in collecting overdue taxes. After a

[[Page 6041]]

rigorous competitive bidding process for these contracts, an Eastern
Iowa company was fortunate enough to receive one of the contracts, and
has been hard at work ever since. While nobody likes to defend the tax
man, the fact is, this company employs more than 625 people in Waterloo
and another 200 in West Des Moines.
Unfortunately, the bill on the floor today includes a provision that
would threaten these Waterloo and West Des Moines jobs. This provision
would disallow any future contracts, which could directly result in the
loss of hundreds of Iowa jobs. As the Representative of Iowa's First
District, I cannot support the elimination of these jobs.
While I intend to vote against this bill due to this provision, I
would like to stress my support for other provisions in this bill:
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that requires the IRS
to notify taxpayers who may have had their identity stolen. It is
unfortunate that the IRS does not already provide this notification,
and I believe that protecting the identities of American taxpayers
should be a primary goal of government.
I am supportive of the provisions in this bill that strengthen
additional protections against identity theft, by increasing the
penalties for those who mislead our citizens in order to steal private
information. Identity theft is a very serious problem, and I am glad
Congress is working to help protect Americans from this growing
epidemic.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that ensures elderly
and disabled individuals receiving in-home care are not subject to
employment tax provisions. This is a much-needed change that helps
protect our senior citizens and disabled citizens.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill to establish a grant
program to expand and improve income tax assistance programs to provide
services to taxpayers. I am also glad to see that the bill allows IRS
employees to refer taxpayers needing assistance with tax cases to
taxpayer clinics. As an ardent supporter of tax simplification, this
provision ensures help is available to those having trouble with the
very complicated process of filing taxes. Just last night I passed H.R.
3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, out of the
House. This bill would greatly simplify income tax forms and documents,
but until my bill becomes law, these taxpayer assistance clinics will
continue to provide valuable services to taxpayers as tax day
approaches.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that requires the IRS
to notify taxpayers if they are potentially eligible for the Earned
Income Tax Credit. This is a good tax credit that should be utilized by
everyone who qualifies, and I believe the IRS should help make sure
that those who are eligible receive the full benefit.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that looks into the
feasibility of providing tax refunds on debit cards. This could create
a more convenient process of receiving tax refunds for many taxpayers.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill which delays the
requirement that Federal, State, and local governments withhold 3
percent from many government payments for goods or services. This 3
percent withholding is bad for small businesses and creates a
bureaucratic mess, and I believe this withholding should be eliminated.
I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 1023, which would completely repeal the 3
percent withholding.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that eliminates the
requirement for individuals and small businesses to keep onerous
records of calls made on cell phones to substantiate business use of
such devices. I have heard from employers in Iowa's First District
about the administrative burden that this creates, and I am glad
Congress is reducing this burden.
I am supportive of closing the loophole that allows foreign
subsidiaries of U.S. companies, performing services as American
companies, to avoid paying taxes. This loophole results in a higher tax
burden being placed on America's working families, so I am glad this
bill takes this action.
Finally, I am supportive of the provision that helps protect against
predatory lending by barring the IRS from providing certain services to
companies that offer refund anticipation loans, if the IRS determines
that the company charges predatory rates.
Again, I believe that many of the provision in the Taxpayer
Assistance & Simplification Act will help protect American taxpayers
and simplify the process of filing taxes. However, these good parts of
the bill do not outweigh the direct, negative impact that the bill
would have on jobs in Iowa's First District, which is why I oppose this
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 5719, ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008'',
introduced by my good friend from New York, Representative Charles
Rangel.

Cost as Compared to the War in Iraq

This bill is estimated to cost $22 million dollars over the next 10
years. Before my Republican colleagues balk at this number I want to
remind them over the past year, the Administration requested a total of
$195.5 billion for FY 2008 emergency war funds at three times--in its
original FY 2008 request in February 2008, in an amendment for Mine
Resistant Ambush Program (MRAP) vehicles on July 31, 2008, and in an
amended request to cover additional costs submitted on October 22,
2008. Thus far, we have appropriated $90.4 billion for war-related
costs of the Defense Department, State/U.S. Agency for International
Development, USAID, and the Veterans' Administration including funds in
both regular and emergency appropriations acts. As of the enactment of
the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations, this brings the total for
funds appropriated to date to $700 billion for the wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan and enhanced security.
Let me be clear, we must support our troops and we must defend our
Nation, but at a time when this country's economy is spiraling
downward, this tax bill will impact Americans regardless of their
political affiliation providing assistance at time when they most need
it.

Summary of H.R. 5719

Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008--Amends the
Internal Revenue Code to: (1) modify penalty provisions for tax return
preparers who take an unreasonable position in the preparation of a tax
return causing an underpayment of tax; (2) eliminate certain
restrictions on the tax deduction for employee use of cellular
telephones; (3) exempt recipients of home care services from liability
for employment taxes for payments made to home care service providers;
(4) authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make grants for
volunteer income tax assistance programs; (5) require written notice to
taxpayers of eligibility for the earned income tax credit; (6) place
restrictions on information relating to refund anticipation loans; (7)
require the Secretary to notify a taxpayer of any unauthorized use of
such taxpayer's identity (suspected identity theft) uncovered during an
tax investigation; (8) repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue
Service, IRS, to enter into private debt collection contracts; (9)
extend the period during which the IRS may return property seized in a
wrongful tax levy; and (10) increase penalties for failures to provide
correct tax information and to file partnership or S corporation tax
returns.
This bill delays until 2012 the 3 percent withholding requirement on
government payments to contractors providing goods and services. It
also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a feasibility
study on alternative means of delivering tax refunds. H.R. 5719 seeks
to expand the prohibitions against the misuse of Department of the
Treasury names and symbols to include misuse on an Internet domain
address.

Programs for the Benefit of Low-Income Taxpayers

There are parts of this tax bill that help the working poor and our
elderly, making this tax bill truly live up to its name of being one of
Taxpayer Assistance . . . not just a credit to the top 2 percent of
Americans. This bill would authorize an annual $10 million grant for
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, VITA, programs, increasing the annual
aggregate limitation authorized on grants to qualified low-income
taxpayer clinics to $10 million.
This bill would allow IRS employees to refer taxpayers needing
assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics so
they can get the help they need. Many people are struggling with how to
manage complicated tax cases when they can barely afford to pay their
mortgage. This portion of the bill will alleviate the fear that is
sometimes associated with IRS tax cases particularly among people who
cannot afford legal counsel.

Elderly and Disabled Individuals Receiving In-Home Care

This bill would make the administrators of State and local government
programs liable for paying the employment taxes on amounts paid by
government programs to in-home care workers provided to elderly and
disabled persons. This is yet another provision of the bill that
benefits our most vulnerable populations.

Conclusion

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
examine this bill in its entirety and recognize that it benefits all
Americans. I fully support what Representative Rangel and the Committee
on Ways and Means has done to alleviate some of the burden on
taxpayers.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this very
timely and important measure. Its enactment will make a number of
worthwhile changes in the current tax

[[Page 6042]]

laws and the policies of the Internal Revenue Service, IRS.
To protect people against identity theft, it will require the IRS to
notify a taxpayer if IRS finds that someone else may have made
unauthorized use of the taxpayer's identity.
It will increase both the civil and criminal penalties that can be
imposed on those who use misleading websites that imitate to seek to
get personal information. This is important because people are losing
thousands of dollars in tax refunds to such frauds.
It will strengthen IRS outreach to make sure that people know that
they are entitled to tax refunds or to payments under the Earned Income
Tax Credit, EITC. It would also permit the IRS to refer these taxpayers
to low income tax clinics and increase funding for those clinics, and
strengthen taxpayer protections from ``predatory'' providers of refund
anticipation loans. And it clarifies that the IRS can use its website
to publicize unclaimed taxpayer refunds.
To help small businesses, the bill will eliminate the outdated
requirement to maintain and submit detailed call records to
substantiate business use of employer-provided cell phones.
Of great importance to State and local governments--including every
county in Colorado--it will delay for one year the imposition of a 3
percent withholding requirement on government payments for goods and
services made after December 31, 2010.
Further, to protect all of us, the bill includes the ``Fair Share
Act,'' which closes a loophole that now allows government contractors
to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
An example of how the current law could permit this was recently
reported in the press account of how a company operating under Federal
contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq has listed the people doing
that work as being employees of a subsidiary company based in the
Cayman Islands. As a result, while people formally employed by the
company with the Federal contract would be subject to the 15.3 percent
payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare (half technically paid by
the employer, the other half technically paid by employees), that is
not the case with people who are counted as working for a foreign
company. This is not fair or just. It should not be permissible, and
this bill would stop it by closing the loophole.
In addition, the bill would strengthen accountability and protect
taxpayers by repealing the authorization for the Internal Revenue
Service to use private contractors to collect Federal income taxes.
Just today, the press is reporting that this program, while perhaps
well-intentioned, has cost the government--that is, the taxpayers--some
$37 million more than the total amount of taxes it has collected, while
the contractors have collected commissions of up to 24 percent for
their efforts. The program has been marked by harassment, abusive
calling, and violations of taxpayer rights and disclosure protections.
The Government Accountability Office has reported that debt collectors
placed over one million calls, many to innocent people, trying to reach
35,000 taxpayers and the Federal Trade Commission reports that as of
last year it had received 130 complaints and the National Taxpayer
Advocate has counted many more. The House has already twice voted to
end this private collection program, and we should do so again today.
Madam Speaker, some have criticized this bill because it includes
measures to implement the requirement that taxes be paid on funds
withdrawn from a Health Savings account for purposes other than those
related to health care. I think the purpose of these provisions is
appropriate, but it may be that they could be more finely-tuned in
order to achieve that purpose in a better way--something that may occur
as the legislative process proceeds. In any event, I am not convinced
that whatever shortcomings there may be in that or other parts of the
bill are sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the rest of the
legislation.
Overall, this is a good bill that will help the taxpayers and our
country, and I urge its passage.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition
to H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and the Simplification Act of
2008. While this bill has some good provisions, such as the delayed
implementation of the 3-percent withholding on Government contracts,
the bad provisions simply outweigh the good. Specifically, I am
troubled by the section that would alter reporting requirements for
Health Savings Account, HSA, owners.
This bill would require individuals using HSAs to provide exhaustive
documentation of their medical expenses in order to qualify as a tax-
exempt expense. More than 5 million Americans are taking advantage of
these accounts, and approximately 25 percent of HSA owners had no
health insurance prior to their participation. Currently, every HSA
account holder must file specific tax forms to provide details about
spending from the account. We must expand this program so we can help
families afford healthcare coverage and bring healthcare costs down.
Requiring unnecessary and duplicative paperwork is not the right way to
accomplish this goal.
HSAs are a very valuable asset to many of my constituents. The
manufacturing industry is one of the premier sources of jobs in my
district, and most of these manufacturing entities are small in nature.
In fact, approximately 93 percent of the more than 1,500 manufacturing
firms in my district employ less than 100 people. Employees of these
small businesses are the primary beneficiaries of HSAs. In a time when
the cost of health care is sharply rising, it is crucial for us to
promote the use of innovative health care products such as HSAs,
helping families afford the health care they need. I am concerned that
we will inevitably deter these families from utilizing HSAs by adding
such draconian reporting requirements for HSA owners. This will
ultimately increase the cost of health care for a large number of my
constituents who currently take advantage of this valuable product.
It is also worth noting that the best assistance we could provide to
taxpayers is to protect them from the largest tax increase in American
history. Sadly, many of my colleagues are more interested in dealing
with minutia in the Tax Code rather than addressing the looming massive
tax hike. Families in my district in Michigan, home of this country's
worst economy, simply cannot afford to pay any more in taxes. A tax
increase of this size would devastate families struggling with sky-high
unemployment, the mortgage crisis, and rising gas prices. It would add
insult to injury to ask them to pay more to this Government as well.
A tax increase of this scope would also be devastating for job
providers and small businesses, This Congress should be doing
everything it can to be helping our economy by creating jobs and
encouraging growth. Dramatically raising taxes would do just the
opposite.
Madam Speaker, implementing the largest tax increase in American
history is a slap in the face to all the families currently struggling
to make ends meet. It has been made abundantly clear today who stands
with working families and who stands with wasteful Washington spending.
I, for one, stand with the hard working men and women of Michigan and
across this great land.
Mr. CANTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose a provision in this
bill that will discourage the use of HSAs. HSAs are a new and
innovative product in the health insurance field. Their glowing track
record promises a tremendous breakthrough in the effort to expand and
improve health care. In 3 short years, we have seen these accounts grow
to cover 4.4 million people, and will likely reach 6 million when the
new numbers come out next month.
For those Americans who need health care most, HSAs are working. Of
HSA applicants, 43 percent did not indicate previous insurance when
they signed up, and 66 percent of HSA account holders are families with
children. HSA users have demonstrated a greater likelihood to seek
preventive care, something we have always strived to achieve across the
entire health arena. And, one-third of small employers who now offer
HSAs did not previously offer insurance.
We need to be looking for bipartisan ways to help people get access
to affordable health care, not take it away from them.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 5719. It is fitting that we are debating a bill that provides
much needed assistance for low and moderate income taxpayers. The
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplfication Act recognizes the need for
enhanced financial literacy for those individuals by authorizing an
annual $10 million grant for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
programs and increases the authorization levels for grants targeted to
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics to $10 million.
These free taxpayer assistance programs walk these individuals
through what can be a daunting tax preparation process and alert them
to assistance they may be eligible for.
A provision of particular importance to me and the taxpayers in the
7th Congressional District is a requirement for IRS to notify taxpayers
of potential eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit for all open
tax years and directs the IRS to notify individuals who have not filed
a return, but who may be eligible for the credit based on previous
return information.
In Indianapolis, there are tens of thousands of individuals who
qualify for the credit who do

[[Page 6043]]

not claim it. This credit assistance is critically needed by many
families in my district.
As an advocate for financial literacy I am pleased to lend my support
to this legislation that enables organizations to better reach out to
those low income individuals who have been hit so hard during this
turbulent time in our economy. I thank Chairman Rangel and my
colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee for their hard and
thoughtful work on this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today, as millions of Americans prepare to
file their Federal income tax returns by midnight, many will be
confounded, confused and, yes, perhaps even cranky because of our
unbelievably complicated tax code, and, I don't think there's a person
in this body who will blame them.
Our tax code is a maze of complexity that creates confusion and, yes,
unfairness. In fact, between 2001 and 2006--when our Republican
colleagues controlled the Congress and the White House--they added more
than 10,000 pages to the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.
It now takes people an average of 34 hours to complete a 1040 long
form. It's no wonder that 62 percent of Americans rely on a tax
professional to prepare their returns.
The Democratic majority has been focused for years on making our Tax
Code fairer and simpler--and doing so in a fiscally responsible way,
but this issue also demands Presidential leadership. We know that from
experience.
The last real tax reform occurred 22 years ago when President Reagan
and Dan Rostenkowski, then Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,
came together to streamline our Tax Code.
When a new President takes office in January 2009, I believe that
this should be an issue near the top of the agenda--particularly an
effort to reform the dreaded alternative minimum tax.
Today, we will consider the ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification
Act,'' which makes small, but important reforms to our Tax Code.
Among other things, this bill will:
Strengthen taxpayer protections from identity theft and tax fraud;
Expand assistance for low-income taxpayers;
Close tax loopholes that allow Government contractors to set up sham
companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid paying Social Security and
Medicare taxes; and
End the private collection of Federal income taxes.
Just this morning, the Washington Post reported that the Internal
Revenue Service expects to lose more than $37 million by using private
debt collectors to pursue tax scofflaws.
That's right--private companies hired to collect tax revenue that the
IRS does not have the resources to pursue actually cost the Federal
Government--i.e., taxpayers--more than they bring in.
Furthermore, let me say that there clearly is something wrong with
our Tax Code when the costs of noncompliance--the so-called ``tax
gap''--is an estimated $345 billion a year. The reality is, this tax
gap is only going to be narrowed and closed when we get serious about
real tax reform.
Until that day, Madam Speaker, we must do what we can to make our tax
laws fairer and simpler. This legislation is an important step in that
regard.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this
bill, and, in the months ahead, to come together--like we did in 1986--
in support of real tax reform.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1102, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Herger

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

Mr. Herger moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5719 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back promptly with the following amendment:

Add at the end the following new sections:

SEC. 20. DENIAL OF TAX EXEMPT INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO BONDS
OF SANCTUARY STATES AND CITIES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 103(c) (defining
State or local bond) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Such term shall not include any
obligation of a State or political subdivision thereof, if
such State or political subdivision has in effect a policy
(whether statutory or otherwise) specifying that employees of
such State or political subdivision are not required to
notify Federal officials of an alien who may be unlawfully
present in the United States.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 21. EFFORTS TO ADMINISTER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

The Secretary of the Treasury shall increase the efforts of
the Internal Revenue Service to ensure, to the extent
possible, that aliens unlawfully present in the United States
are not allowed a credit under section 32 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to earned income).

Mr. HERGER (during the reading). I request unanimous consent that the
reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion and a
Member in opposition to the motion will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, Federal law requires local governments to
cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities may turn over
individuals who have been apprehended if the police believe they are
not legally present in the United States.
Unfortunately, many local governments flaunt this requirement and
openly boast that they refuse to cooperate with the Federal Government
in helping to enforce our immigration laws establishing an
irresponsible precedent and frustrating our shared goal of having safe
and secure borders.
As you know, taxpayers all across the country subsidize local
governments through a provision of Federal law that permits States and
localities to issue debt that is exempt from Federal taxes.

{time} 1745

The motion presents the Members of Congress with a simple question:
Is it reasonable to put some strings on this subsidy?
If adopted, the motion would clarify that the Federal tax subsidy
does not apply to new debt issued by States or localities that declare
themselves by statute or other manner to be a sanctuary city for
illegal immigrants. In other words, having self-helped themselves out
of helping the Federal Government address the growing burden of illegal
immigrants, then they should not expect American taxpayers to subsidize
their debt.
Madam Speaker, on April 15, we are reminded again about the many
Americans who are playing by the rules, yet still feel the squeeze on
their family budgets, particularly at tax time. Isn't it only fair that
we ask our city mayors and county boards to do the same?
This brings me to the second piece of our motion to recommit. Many
American families benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. It has
helped millions of low-income families help make ends meet, though its
cost to the Treasury is not insubstantial. Studies have often showed
that the earned income tax credit is overclaimed by as much as 30
percent. In other words, many of those who receive the benefit are not
actually entitled to it.
As the underlying bill includes a provision directing the IRS to
conduct outreach to inform individuals that they may be eligible for
the earned income tax credit, the motion would add language directing
the IRS to improve its efforts to identify individuals who may be
ineligible for the EITC on account of their citizenship status.

[[Page 6044]]

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this
motion to recommit. While I am greatly concerned about the message sent
by the underlying bill that somehow we are going to take away an
effective tool to ensure we all pay our fair share of taxes, this
motion helps correct that wrong-headed tilt by trying to prevent tax
benefits from going to illegal aliens and cities and States who shelter
them from our immigration laws.
I urge passage of the motion.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, we have just obtained the motion in terms
of trying to sort through the tax provisions, with an eye, among other
things, to wondering whether or not people holding bonds of
municipalities could suddenly find themselves with taxes they didn't
think they were going to have when they bought these bonds.
Trying to work our way through these, one word jumped out on this
motion to recommit that really has shut down all further analysis by
us, and that is the word ``promptly,'' because this is yet another one
of those motions to recommit that is designed for one purpose and one
purpose only, and that is to kill the bill they are trying to attach it
to. That is because this would take the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act that we want to pass than April 15th and pack it off
back to the Ways and Means Committee, dispensing any possibility of
passing it off the floor today. It is a procedural move by the minority
to try and stop us from moving forward with this legislation.
What is unfortunate about that is there are taxpayers that are going
to be benefited, benefited substantially, by this legislation, small
businesses that right now are subject to IRS audit exposure if they are
not keeping detailed call records on cell phones that they give their
employees. We want to take this relief away through this motion to
recommit? I don't think so.
We go through so many positive, taxpayer-friendly provisions in this
bill, provisions that have received the support of so many diverse
organizations, from the League of Cities, Association of Mayors, NFIB
and Consumers Federation of America, it would take that and take it off
the table today, preventing the House from moving this forward.
Now, you think, why? What is the motive behind a motion like this?
Why would they not want this taxpayer bill to move forward? Well, my
friends, you can find it on the front page of today's Washington Post.
Basically, they are trying everything they can to preserve private bill
collectors hired by the IRS to chase after taxpayers.
So here on Tax Day, April 15th, we are trying to stop private bill
collectors from going after taxpayers on behalf of the IRS, an endeavor
that has cost taxpayers millions and brought in not enough by any
measure to cover the cost; a forgone revenue opportunity of $81
million, testified by the Taxpayer Advocate, if we simply took the
money we sent to these private contractors and hired employees to go
ahead and collect that debt. But they are so completely convinced that
they have got to pull every trick out of their hat to try and stop our
efforts to rein in these private bill collectors that they brought this
motion to recommit.
I would yield such time as I have remaining to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman.
I perused the motion to recommit by Mr. Herger. I think it is
interesting, the other side has pointed out we have chosen today, Tax
Day, to bring this bill to the floor. It is also interesting they take
this motion to recommit the same day that the Pope has arrived here in
the United States, who is with the President right now at the White
House; the same Pope who has decried the xenophobic nature of some of
the legislation that has been coming out of this House by the other
side of the aisle.
I think it is interesting to note that no illegal aliens will be hurt
by this motion to recommit. In fact, it will be the elderly woman who
relies upon her opportunities to buy these bonds for their income later
in life. I would also point out it is quite possible that New York
State and California, the States of two of the gentleman here today,
could potentially be hurt by this motion to recommit.
I think it is foolhardy. It obviously is an attempt to kill the bill
by requiring it be promptly reported back to committee, and therefore
the attempt is clear, once again to use anti-immigrant rhetoric to kill
the bill and to use ``promptly'' to kill the bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to vote
for the underlying legislation.
Mr. POMEROY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman please state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, isn't it true the Chair has
ruled multiple times on the fact that a bill reported promptly out of
the House may return to the House floor at the discretion of the
committee, and the fact that the Ways and Means Committee brought this
to the floor, it could easily do so within a relatively short period of
time, a matter of days?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair reaffirmed on November 15,
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report the
bill back to the House.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HERGER. 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.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of
the bill, if ordered; and suspension of the rules with respect to H.R.
5517.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 210, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 189]

YEAS--210

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre

[[Page 6045]]

McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--210

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

NOT VOTING--12

Culberson
Cummings
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
Mack
Pallone
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1821

Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. ALLEN, BRADY of Pennsylvania, NADLER and Mrs.
DAVIS of California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BURGESS, SOUDER and TERRY changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, is it not true that you are the
deliberator and the decider of rules in this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules on questions of order. Does
the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it
not the job of the Speaker to interpret the rules of this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have an inquiry to state?
Would the gentleman please state that inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, is it not true that under rule XX of
this House, that it says that no votes will be kept open to change the
outcome of that vote; is that true?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair advised on March 11, 2008, a
challenge to the Chair's actions under clause 2 of rule XX may be
raised collaterally.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry, and I
beg your pardon, but I don't believe this is a hard question to answer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker, is this:
Is the Speaker the deliberator and the decider if the rules of this
House are being followed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules on questions of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma'am, I don't know how else to put it other than
maybe a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The point of order is: Is the Speaker of this House
the deliberator and the decider if the rules of this House are being
followed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has recognized the gentleman for a
point of order. Would the gentleman please state his point of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The point of order is: Is it the Chair's
responsibility to rule on a point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has stated a parliamentary
inquiry. The Chair does rule on points of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the
electronic vote just completed violated clause 2(a) of rule XX which
provides in part ``a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be
held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair advised on March 11, 2008, a
challenge to the Chair's actions under clause 2 of rule XX may be
raised collaterally.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam, I am raising that point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just ruled.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 179, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 190]

AYES--238

[[Page 6046]]

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

NOES--179

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

NOT VOTING--14

Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
Johnson, E. B.
Mack
Pallone
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1833

Mr. CRENSHAW changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

TEXAS MILITARY VETERANS POST OFFICE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5517, 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. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5517.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 191]

YEAS--413

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

[[Page 6047]]

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

NOT VOTING--18

Cardoza
Chandler
Courtney
Culberson
Delahunt
Dicks
Gohmert
Honda
Linder
Mack
Pallone
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Rangel
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1840

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.

____________________

AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 5719,
TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2008

Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be
authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R.
5719, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section
numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate
headings.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.

____________________

HONORING THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL CRITTENTON FOUNDATION

(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an historic
anniversary of the National Crittenton Foundation, which was the first
charitable organization created under a congressional charter, and is
celebrating 125 years of service.
People who recognize the Crittenton name often recall only the
maternity homes that were usually hidden and welcomed girls and young
women seeking support during their unplanned pregnancies. Much less is
known about the influence of the national network of affiliated
Crittenton agencies and their lasting impact on the social work
profession.
The unique relationship between the National Crittenton Foundation
and the Crittenton family of agencies is based on the belief that
addressing compelling social issues in the United States is best done
through a network of independent local agencies supported by a national
body.
There are now over 23 Crittenton agencies across the country.
Together they have provided over 2,200 years of continuous service to 5
million vulnerable girls, young women and their families.
Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in wishing the
National Crittenton Foundation and its family of agencies across the
country happy anniversary, and our best wishes for another 125 years of
success.

____________________

{time} 1845
TAX DAY

(Mr. McCAUL of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Speaker, once again, the tax man cometh.
Today, April 15, is a day American taxpayers scramble to comply with a
tax code over 67,000 pages long.
In 2007, individual taxpayers spent over 3 billion hours complying
with the Federal income tax laws. Individuals spent $26.5 billion for
tax software, tax repairs, postage, and other costs related to filing
their Federal income taxes. And corporations spend over $156 billion to
comply with the Federal tax laws.
Americans may send $2.5 trillion to the IRS, but the costs to our
economy is much greater. Despite this, the majority party is forcing a
$654 billion tax increase on the American people, the largest tax
increase in American history. It is time to scrap this oppressive tax
code. It is time to take a look at the fair tax or the flat tax as
viable alternatives to our overly burdensome tax code, and it's time to
stop punishing taxpayers and pass fundamental tax reform.

____________________

AMERICA, WE ARE ON YOUR SIDE ON TAX DAY

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today is Tax Day, April 15,
and that's why the Democrats have risen today to be able to tell the
American people we're on your side. The Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008 may cost $22 million, but I can assure you
that it pales in comparison to the money that my friends are spending
on the unending war in Iraq.
I am glad to stand with the taxpayers of America, making sure that
the elderly and the disabled are exempted from liability for employment
taxes or payments to home care service providers. They deserve our
respect, and today we give it to them.
I am glad that we are requiring a written notice to taxpayers of the
eligibility of the earned income tax credit. It's a shame that so many
think that there is so much fraud for hardworking Americans who don't
file for their taxes who deserve it, and I'm delighted to stand with
Americans to repeal the authority of the IRS to enter into private debt
collection, those guys who have harassed the elderly, the shut-ins,
hardworking Americans because they are private bounty hunters.
Today we stand with hardworking Americans. We will do so as well. And
we honor our troops, declare the war's end, bring them home and
reinvest in America.

____________________

LOWERING THE COST OF FUEL

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, it is, in essence, the third day in the
legislative schedule when I come to the floor to talk about energy
prices.
When this Democrat majority took over the House, the price of a
barrel of crude oil was $58 a barrel. Today, it hovers around $111 a
barrel.
In 2006, the Democrat leadership promised lower gas prices. What
we've seen, in reality, is higher gas prices. We've seen negative
change, which has caused bitterness in rural America with the high-
increasing cost to travel around rural America. All we're asking is for
a plan to bring on more supply.
I have been in this well numerous times in this Congress to talk
about coal-to-liquid technologies. We shouldn't limit it to that. We
should talk about expanding renewable fuels. We should talk about the
outer continental shelf. We ought to talk about ANWR. We need to bring
more supply to lower the cost of fuels because the average American
citizens are tired of paying these high gas prices, and it hurts the
economy of this country.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Boyda of Kansas). 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.

____________________

IRS EQUALS IRAQ REVENUE SUPPLIERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 6048]]

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today is April 15, Tax Day. Right now,
millions of Americans are hurrying to report their incomes to the IRS.
Usually, ``IRS'' stands for ``Internal Revenue Service,'' but today, it
might as well stand for ``Iraq revenue suppliers'' because so much of
our tax revenue is paying for the occupation of Iraq.
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, has calculated
the occupation will cost at least $3 trillion. That means that the
occupation will cost each of our 300 million citizens $10,000, or an
incredible $40,000 for a family of four.
America's hardworking families are struggling to keep their heads
above water as we sink into a deep, what I call, Iraq recession. Yet,
they're being asked to hand over $40,000, most of which goes to the
foreign nations that are lending us the money to keep the occupation
going. And that $40,000, Madam Speaker, will get much bigger if the
occupation goes on for another few years, for 100 years as some
cheerleaders for the occupation are discussing.
What have we gotten for our occupation money? General Petraeus told
us last week that the security situation in Iraq has gotten much
better. But 19 of our incredibly brave soldiers died last week. And our
top military leaders continue to warn us that our obsession with Iraq
is breaking our military and that we may wake up one day to find that
we can't meet a real threat to our national security.
Next month, the IRS will mail out economic stimulus checks. I'm glad
that that relief is on the way. But the best economic stimulus plan
would be to end the occupation of Iraq. The American people agree. A
recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 89 percent of the American
people believe that the cost of the occupation has contributed to our
economic problems.
Last month, the Progressive Caucus put forth an alternative budget
that showed that we can actually achieve an end to the occupation in
Iraq and re-order our spending priorities. The budget is truly
remarkable. We were able to fully fund the education that our children
deserved and that our Nation must have to remain competitive in the
global economy.
We were able to invest in green jobs that could employ millions of
our citizens and put our Nation on the path to the energy independence
we must have to fuel our economy and ensure our national security. And
we were able to provide health care coverage to every American who
lacks it, not only fulfilling our promise to care for each other, but
making our country stronger and more competitive in the process.
But instead of revving up these engines of economic growth and social
justice, the administration will soon send to Congress yet another
request for emergency Iraq funding. This time around, the request will
be for $108 billion.
Madam Speaker, I agree that we must spend money on Iraq but not the
way the administration wants to spend it. It wants an open-ended
occupation. Instead, we must fully fund the safe, responsible
redeployment of our troops and military contractors out of Iraq.
And we must help, not do it all, but we must help to reconstruct
Iraq. We've all heard of the so-called Pottery Barn rule: If you break
it, you own it. We need to expand that saying: If you break it, you
have a moral obligation to help rebuild it.
It's time for the madness to end, Madam Speaker. It's time to bring
our troops home, get our fiscal house in order, give the Iraqi people
back their sovereignty and help them rebuild their country and their
lives.

____________________

AMERICA'S DOMESTIC OIL SUPPLY CANNOT MEET ITS DEMAND

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the price of gasoline goes up every day, and
Congress is partially to blame. The price of crude oil is increasing
because demand is increasing. Our domestic energy supply cannot meet
that demand. The global demand for oil is also rising with the
industrialization of China. And increased demand for oil leads to
increased prices for many products, including products made out of
plastic.
The problem is that Congress has made it difficult for our supply to
meet that demand. There is a solution to the problem. The solution is
to increase our supply by exploring domestic energy sources and
drilling in ANWR.
Like it or not, crude oil is still the energy base of our Nation.
Unlike every other country on the planet, the United States does not
take advantage of its own natural resources. When Congress abolished
tax credits for domestic exploration and production, Congress
effectively abolished reasonable oil prices and then raised taxes on
oil companies to $18 billion, taxes that are eventually passed on to
us, the consumer. Thus, higher prices at the pump.
And this Congress decided to even award Venezuelan Dictator Chavez
and his nationalized oil company with a large tax break, a tax break
they did not give to American oil companies.
It's common knowledge that, if you tax something, you're going to get
less of it. If you tax oil, you get less of it. Less of what? Less
production and less crude oil. Less oil on the market equals higher
prices at the pump. And if we look at the world crude oil reserves, 80
percent of the world crude oil is controlled by foreign nationalized
oil companies. We call them OPEC. Six percent is controlled by Russian
companies, and only six percent of the world oil reserves is controlled
by American-owned oil companies. You know, those American-owned oil
companies that are capitalistic, that have stockholders, we call them
Americans. And those companies are making about 8 percent, 8\1/2\
profit.
So the world is controlled by OPEC, not American oil companies. We
may be the world power, but the United States does not control the
world oil market.
The only control we have is over our domestic energy supply, which we
don't take advantage of because of the U.S. restrictions on offshore
drilling and exploration. We have succumbed to the environmental fear
myth that we cannot drill safely offshore. Other nations, including
Britain, Norway, Holland, and Denmark, take full advantage of their
natural resources and even permit offshore drilling in the North Sea,
that area of the world where offshore drilling is the most difficult,
and they do it without environmental damage.

{time} 1900

We can increase our energy supply and reduce the price of gasoline at
the pump by also allowing drilling in ANWR.
On top of the heightened demand for crude oil, there is a heightened
demand for new refineries. Madam Speaker, I represent 21 percent of the
Nation's refineries in southeast Texas, but we don't have any new ones.
The last oil refinery was built 32 years ago. Our oil refineries have
been punished by bureaucracy and unnecessary Federal regulations. Too
many unnecessary Federal regulations, too many government controls, too
many high taxes, the second highest corporate income tax in the world,
and what happens? They leave town, they go somewhere else. We must lift
these burdens and encourage refinery development. Our gasoline prices
will eventually drop as soon as we build new refineries and we drill
offshore and we drill in ANWR.
The high prices of gasoline have thrown the airline industry into
chaos. Twenty-two percent of the Nation's jet fuel is made in my
district. But one example, Madam Speaker, it costs an airline company
$44 a minute to allow a plane to idle on the runway. Thus, every plane
that takes off that's been sitting there about 30 minutes costs $1,500
in additional oil prices.
The high gas prices even affect the 170,000 independently owned gas
stations in the country. They no longer make a profit on selling fuel.
They hope to make one cent on every gallon, so they are thrilled if
they make that penny. They make money by selling lottery tickets,
donuts and beer, that's how they make their profit.

[[Page 6049]]

It's time for us in Congress to encourage more domestic oil
production, lift the restrictions to offshore drilling, and take care
of ourselves. We must stop relying on unstable, volatile regions in the
world and pompous dictators who hold Americans hostage with their crude
oil.
We have a problem, but we can solve it. Otherwise, we'll be parking
our vehicles on the side of the road, riding bicycles to work, then
blissfully wondering where all the crude oil went.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to
address the House for a few moments.
I think it's very appropriate for us to pause for a moment here and
just reflect on where we are as a Nation and as a people when it comes
to our economy and our financial House. This April 15, it's Tax Day.
It's important that this House of Representatives be mindful of the
difficulties that the American people are faced with.
Madam Speaker, millions of American people and families are
absolutely hanging on by their fingernails. They're on the verge of
losing their homes. Many have already. And so much of it has been
because of bad policies by their government. It is important for us to
understand that, Madam Speaker, so much of this could possibly have
been prevented had we moved quicker, had we made different policies.
This is a very sobering time. Two major events happened today. One
is, the American people, many are in line at post offices as we speak
trying to meet the midnight deadline to pay their taxes. Others are
struggling to do so. Others are having difficulty even beginning to
comprehend the complexities, the complications of a tax code that even
if they sat down to read it, it would take them over 1 year trying to
read the tax code, let alone trying to understand it, just the volume
of trying to read it.
And Madam Speaker, we in Congress must take into consideration how
difficult that is, the fact that the American people, many are not even
taking the credits or getting the deductions that they should have
because they don't understand it. Twenty-five percent of American
families that are entitled to the Earned Income Tax Credit don't even
get it because they don't understand how to do it.
Last year, over 65 percent of American families had to get a private
person from the outside to come help them with their taxes. That has
increased up 25 percent, since just 10 years ago it was 40. And in
1950, it was just 20 percent that did that. The complexity of our tax
code is just out of whack. Many are gathered around the kitchen tables
right now trying to find out how they're going to have ends meet.
And Madam Speaker, the other phenomenal event in our economy that
took place today was the merger of Delta Airlines and Northwest
Airlines, making the largest airline company in the world. That is
certainly room to celebrate, but it's very important that we be very
mindful to both Delta and Northwest to understand the implications of
that, to have the sensitivity that there are many thousands of families
that are impacted, and that we do not use the word ``synergy'' to
equate with a loss of jobs, but that there are no jobs lost.
We in Congress must have the empathy of putting ourselves into the
mindset of the American people, and we must show that we understand the
difficulties that the American people are faced with; we understand the
difficulties of knowing when they wake up the next morning, their car
may be repossessed, they may have a foreclosure notice.
Our policies must be, here in this House of Representatives going
forward, to keep Americans in their homes, even if it means coming up
with the policies and moving as fast as we can. If we could move with
lickety-split speed to save Wall Street, Bear Stearns, and Madam
Speaker, I believe that was the right thing to do because, had we not,
global markets would have cascaded and we would have had an
extraordinary world calamity in the financial markets, but just as
aggressively as we moved with those policies that helped Wall Street
and Bear Stearns, we must move to help our homeowners and our families.
And then finally, Madam Speaker, the real elephant facing us in the
room, the real looming threat economically and financially to this
country is our overwhelming debt. Madam Speaker, it is staggering to
look at the debt that we are in. Every dime we are spending is on
borrowed money. And we have spent, Madam Speaker, as I conclude, in the
last 5 or 6 years, more money from foreign governments than in the
entire history of this country.
Madam Speaker, that's the state of our economy. And it's very
important that we reflect it from the perspective of the American
people. And I thank you for this opportunity.

____________________

COMPLEXITY OF TAX CODE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, you know, it is said that nothing in the
world is certain except death and taxes. And I'll tell you, being a
physician in my former life, that sometimes even death is a little less
complicated than our tax system.
The complexity of the tax code is a consequence of countless
deductions and exemptions that are aimed not at collecting revenue, but
steering a social agenda. And the result is a Federal law that is
fraught with opportunities for avoiding taxes and full of loopholes to
be exploited, all at the expense of fellow Americans.
My criticizing the tax code is as American as apple pie and baseball,
and for good reason, because every year Americans spend billions of
hours and billions of dollars, and that's not counting the billions of
hours that we spend complaining about the tax code. Time is money, and
time should be spent growing the economy and creating jobs.
There is a strong prescription for real change in our tax code. We
caught a glimpse of it when Ronald Reagan cut the tax code in half back
in 1986. As a result of that reform, the economy grew, revenues
increased, and jobs were created. The prescription is pretty simple:
Flatten the tax, broaden the base, and shift the burden away from
families and small businesses.
And we do have a practical and effective blueprint, it's called the
flat tax. Back in 1981, Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka proposed a
radically simple structure that would transform the Internal Revenue
Service and our economy by creating a single tax rate for all
Americans. Today, several States have implemented a single rate tax
structure for their State income tax, and from Utah to Massachusetts
citizens are realizing the benefit.
In Colorado, a single rate tax generated so much income that it was
reduced 10 years after its implementation. In Indiana, the economy
boomed after a single rate went into effect in 2003, and since that
time the corporate income tax receipts have grown by 250 percent.
Now, several people in Congress are working on the problem. I have a
bill, H.R. 1040, which is a voluntary flat tax. A companion bill was
introduced by the senior Senator from Tennessee just this past week. We
have bills from David Dreier, the gentleman from California, Paul Ryan
from Wisconsin, all trying to accomplish the same goal, and it is so
simple. You have a single rate, you have a single piece of paper. You
put in your name, just a little bit of identification data, write in
your income, there's a line for personal exemptions, calculate your
deductions from personal exemptions and calculate your taxable income,
multiply it by a flat rate, subtract the taxes already withheld, and
you're done. And what did that take? Not even 30 seconds. No more
expensive tax attorney

[[Page 6050]]

bills, no more hours of stressful research, no more headaches. It is
much less costly, saving the taxpayers more than $100 billion per year.
And it would increase tax compliance. The result: Increase in personal
savings, and there is a stimulus package that would have an immediate
effect on our American economy.
Recent polling by a group called American Solutions shows that over
80 percent of Americans favor an optional one-page tax return form with
a single rate. Now, we hear a lot of talk about change this year. You
practically cannot turn on the television without some political
commercial talking about change. Well, let's consider how change could
improve the most complicated of institutions, the Internal Revenue
Service. And more importantly, consider how that change could deliver
prosperity and return time, the precious commodity of time, to the
American taxpayer. Now, that's a stimulus package worthy of everyone's
vote.

____________________

THE REAL CULPRIT FOR RISING FOOD PRICES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, the world is beginning to understand what
my constituents have known for far too long, higher food prices and
higher commodity prices are destroying prosperity for millions and
millions of people here at home and abroad. Whether there is a hungry
person in Toledo, Ohio or in Haiti, the rising costs of basic food are
really placing the world's marginalized and poor in even a tighter
squeeze.
Getting in the front of devastation that higher commodity prices can
cause is a challenge to all of us. While I am pleased that the leaders
of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have called for
half a billion dollars more to feed the poor of the world, I'm deeply
troubled that these leaders have pointed to the same tired rhetoric in
diagnosing the cause of these rising prices. It's been very interesting
for me to hear them say they're blaming higher food prices on the
production of ethanol and biodiesel in agricultural America, which is
actually a new value-added market for our farmers. It's actually a new
market that's taking land that is just laying fallow for years, where
we have paid commodity payments and gotten nothing, now we are
beginning to reuse some of that land again.
The real culprit for rising food prices is rising oil prices. Our
world is facing a crisis precipitated by the greater competition for
dwindling supplies of world energy that has caused all the prices of
basic goods to skyrocket. But instead of dealing with that reality of
how oil is embedded in every aspect of life in this country and
globally, they're trying to blame this on the new developing market of
renewable energy.
Yes, under current technology biofuels consume some food stocks for
the production of fuel. Corn has been utilized by some ethanol
producers, for example. But to claim that biofuels are the cause of
rising food prices, that's disingenuous at best. Look to the rising oil
prices at over $113 a barrel, and this oil-dependent economy must
become energy independent here at home again. And renewable fuels based
in agriculture are a part of the solution for this country in the
world.
Take a look at the rising cost of fertilizer that can be directly
attributed to the increasing cost of natural gas and smaller crop
sizes. According to the recent Texas A&M Agriculture and Food Policy
Center analysis, rising fertilizer costs have led to a $3 million acre
reduction in planted corn in the 2006, 2007 crop year.
Let's look at another major cause globally of why food prices are
going up: Drought. World food production has gone down because in
Australia and eastern Europe, and because of poor weather in Canada and
western Europe and Ukraine, we've seen overall production reduced. With
such world stocks for wheat at 30-year lows, buyers are turning to the
United States for supplies. Has the IMF offered suggestions to these
nations for dealing with the drought that global warming is causing?
No. They're just blaming America's farmers.
Higher incomes around the world are boosting demand for processed
foods in countries such as India and China. And this higher demand has
skyrocketed the need for products produced across the supply chain.
Now, has the IMF sought to better manage the uncontrolled growth in
developing countries? No. They're just blaming America's farmers.

{time} 1915

With the U.S. dollar in free fall, American agricultural goods have
become extremely attractive internationally and have placed great
demand on foodstuff production domestically. With greater competition
for food, with more U.S. exports, our weak dollar due to terrible
economic policies here at home has decreased the power of Americans to
purchase food produced right here in our country. Has the IMF
identified the weak dollar as the challenge to millions of Americans
faced with food shortages? Of course not. They just blame the U.S.
farmer and the new developing market of biofuels.
With the price of oil reaching over $110 a barrel, the world's
addiction to oil is driving up the production costs of agricultural
products. How much do you think it costs to haul a truckload of bell
peppers from Salinas Valley in California to Cleveland, Ohio?
I cannot accept IMF's wanton attack on the investment in rural
America. If we follow their formula, we would not be growing any food
domestically. If we were following IMF's advice, we would not be
developing the infrastructure and capacity to produce our own renewable
energy here at home and help lead the world in a real energy-
independent transformation of this country.
Madam Speaker, Americans simply must commit to cutting off our oil
addiction and restoring energy independence here at home.

[From IMF Survey Magazine, Apr. 10, 2008]

Food Price Rises Threaten Efforts To Cut Poverty--Strauss-Kahn

Higher food prices have particularly adverse effect on the
poor.
Projections show nearly all African countries suffering
food price shocks.
IMF Spring Meetings to discuss global strategy on food
price crisis.
A rise in food prices of 48 percent since end-2006 is a
huge increase that may undermine gains the international
community has made in reducing proverty, IMF Managing
Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned.
He told an April 10 news conference in Washington that
policy responses to higher food prices have to be tailored to
meet the needs of each country.
Strauss-Kahn said the IMF could take four steps to help
address higher food prices in the short term:
Support countries in designing appropriate macroeconomic
policies to deal with shocks; provide advice and technical
assistance for countries where rising food prices are eroding
terms of trade, through targeted income support for the
poor--without jeopardizing hard-won gains on economic
stabilization; in countries where price shocks are affecting
the balance of payments, provide assistance through IMF
lending facilities, and work, along with other agencies and
donors, to help countries mitigate negative impacts.

Open trade policies

Longer-term answers to the problem of higher food prices
centered on removing obstacles to increased supply, Strauss-
Kahn said.
The IMF cites increased trade as a policy option for
mitigating the effects of higher commodity prices on national
economies. IMF chief economist Simon Johnson told an April 9
World Economic Outlook briefing: ``As a way to reduce global
pressure on food and energy prices, more open trade policies
in those products would be a good start. Less insular
biofuels policy in advanced economies would help relieve some
pressure. At the same time, we encourage countries to avoid
raising taxes or imposing quotas on their food exports. These
reduce incentives for domestic producers and also increase
international prices.''

Impact on inflation

IMF research shows that higher prices for food pose new
challenges for African policymakers and could have
particularly adverse effects on the poor. Because food
represents a larger share of what poorer consumers buy, a
global increase in food prices has a bigger impact on
inflation in poorer countries.
IMF studies show the rise in food prices reflecting a
mixture of longer-term factors

[[Page 6051]]

such as food crops being diverted to biofuel production;
higher food demand from emerging economies; and higher energy
and fertilizer costs. Temporary factors, such as droughts,
floods, and political instability, also contributed to higher
food prices.
Strauss-Kahn displayed a map at the press briefing that
showed the impact of projected food price increases on global
trade balances.
``Almost all African countries have a negative impact from
these food prices,'' Strauss-Kahn told the briefing. A
problem in trade balances meant problems in current accounts.
Problems in current accounts meant problems that the IMF
could help address, he said.
New projections on the effects of higher food prices follow
publication of a World Bank-IMF report warning that most
countries will fall short on the Millennium Development
Goals, a set of eight globally agreed development targets
that the international community is aiming to achieve by
2015. The report said that though much of the world is set to
cut extreme poverty in half by then, prospects are gravest
for the goals of reducing child and maternal mortality, with
serious shortfalls also likely in primary school completion,
nutrition, and sanitation goals.

New kind of imbalance

In Africa and Asia the effect of higher food prices would
have to be seen not only in terms of undermining the efforts
to fight against poverty but also as representing a new kind
of macroeconomic imbalance, Strauss-Kahn said. For a large
part of Africa, a shock could be expected that was as big as,
and maybe bigger than, previous shocks.
Strauss-Kahn welcomed an initiative launched by U.K. Prime
Minister Gordon Brown that urges the IMF, the World Bank, and
the United Nations to develop a global strategy to address
higher food prices. ``The initiative taken by Gordon Brown is
perfectly timely, We need now to consider the rise in food
prices as something which is not just happening for one or
two months but as probably more structural,'' Strauss-Kahn
said.
The Brown proposal would probably be on the agenda of the
IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings and of the ministerial meeting
of the Group of Seven industrial countries, he added.

____________________

FOREIGN SHORTFALLS IN IRAQ AID PLEDGES

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Boyda of Kansas). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to
the attention of the House and to the American people a disturbing
situation involving a shortfall in Iraq aid pledges. This morning
during a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, I also brought
this issue to the attention of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen.
On January 30, 2008, USA Today reported that allied countries have
paid only $2.5 million of the more than $15.8 billion they pledged to
help rebuild Iraq. The article further reports: ``The biggest
shortfalls in pledges by 41 donor countries are from Iraq's oil-rich
neighbors and U.S. allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Madam Speaker, it is extremely troubling that some of the countries
that may benefit most from a secure and stable Iraq, particularly its
neighbors in the region, are not providing the money they pledged to
help achieve that goal.
The United States, on the other hand, has already spent $29 billion
to help rebuild Iraq, and Congress has approved an additional $16.5
billion. And unlike the United States, which is borrowing money from
foreign governments to pay its bills, many of Iraq's neighbors are
running record surpluses because of profits their governments receive
from their national oil companies.
In 2001 a gallon of gasoline cost Americans $1.42. Today that same
gallon costs us $3.36. In 2001 oil was $28 per barrel. Today that same
barrel is almost $114. Many of the countries who are falling short on
their pledges to Iraq are withholding oil production and causing gas
prices to rise on the American consumer. These countries have the
economic resources to meet their commitments to Iraq.
Madam Speaker, in a letter on February 8 of this year, I expressed
these concerns to Secretary Rice. Since then I received a response from
the Department of State. They say they share my concern that for some
countries the pace of their assistance to Iraq has been too slow. The
State Department also indicates that top officials continue to urge
their government to follow through on their pledges, and with the
increased successes, the department is working through multilateral
forums to encourage donors to meet their pledges.
During this morning's hearing, Secretary Rice also pledged that she
will redouble her efforts to encourage allies in the region to pay
their way in Iraq. Madam Speaker, out of fairness to the American
taxpayer, I am hopeful that these efforts will be successful. It is
time for Arab countries that are running surpluses to start paying
their share of the bills in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, I have said many times and said it today at the
hearing that it's our men and women who are in Iraq losing their legs,
being paralyzed for the rest of their life, and losing their life for
this country. It is the least that these Arab countries can do that are
making dollars every time we put gas in our cars. It is time that they
meet their obligation to fulfill the $15.8 billion that they pledged to
help rebuild Iraq.
With that, Madam Speaker, before I close, I ask God to continue to
bless our men and women in uniform, and I ask God to continue to bless
America.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5715, ENSURING
CONTINUED ACCESS TO STUDENT LOAN ACT OF 2008

Ms. CASTOR, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-590) on the resolution (H. Res. 1107) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued
availability of access to the Federal student loan program for students
and families, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.

____________________

WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Speaker, this week is Week of the Young Child,
and I stand before you and my colleagues this evening to call for the
full funding of Head Start, our Nation's premier early education
program, and for Child Care and Development Block Grants.
I understand firsthand how important Head Start and subsidized child
care programs are for low-income working families. I grew up in
poverty, and I had a single mother who suffered from mental illness. I
relied on support from my extended family, community, and friends. And
as a result of the support that I received, I was able to focus on
school, work hard, and achieve the American Dream. However, not all
children are fortunate enough to have this sort of support system
outside of their homes, and even with this additional support, many of
Iowa's children could benefit from attending Head Start. Additionally,
many hardworking, low-income parents could more easily push their
families out of poverty if provided access to affordable and reliable
child care. This is why it is critical that we properly fund Head Start
and Child Care and Development Block Grants so we can expand enrollment
and provide greater support to working families and opportunity to our
Nation's children.
For years we have been provided with statistics proving the benefits
of Head Start and affordable child care. We know that children enrolled
in Head Start will excel academically, have fewer health problems, and
adapt better both socially and emotionally.
However, to appreciate fully the benefits, Madam Speaker, one simply
has to speak with the parents of these outstanding young students. In
Iowa's Second District, which I am proud to represent, I have been
lucky enough to visit a number of Head Start locations, and I have
received letters from the parents of a number of these students. One of
these letters was from Trina Thompson, a single, hardworking parent of
two. Her youngest child attends

[[Page 6052]]

Head Start in Iowa City, where she shared with me that ``The staff and
the program itself at Head Start are invaluable to my family and many
others. It is a well-run program that has been vitally beneficial to my
daughter and my family.'' Ms. Thompson went on to say, ``I can go to
work every day secure in the knowledge that my daughter is safe in a
positive learning environment with amazing people.'' Ms. Thompson is
not alone in her praise of these critical programs and the outstanding
educators and child care providers.
The photo behind me today is a photo of one of these exceptional
providers. Kelly Mathews of Iowa City is pictured here with children at
the child care center she runs in Iowa. Ms. Mathews works 50 hours a
week with the children at this center. Then she spends additional time
filling out paperwork, completing continuing education credits,
shopping for supplies, and creating a challenging and exciting
curriculum for the children under her care. Ms. Mathews does all this
for one clear reason: ``to change the world.'' But we know this goal
isn't easy, especially when Ms. Mathews is receiving a very modest
salary with no benefits and no paid time off. We must do better for Ms.
Mathews, better for all the child care providers and Head Start
teachers, better for the children in Iowa and across the country, and
better for hardworking families.
Unfortunately, this year the President failed to stand up for our
country's children. He failed to prioritize their needs, forgetting
that these children are the key to our country's future success. This
year the President proposes flat funding for child care that will cause
200,000 children to lose access to child care assistance by 2009. The
administration also acknowledges that fewer children will be served in
Head Start under their proposal. Should these cuts be implemented, the
Kelly Mathews of the world will find it even more difficult to make
ends meet, and the Trina Thompsons and their young children will find
it next to impossible to secure a spot at their local Head Start. And
this is simply not acceptable.
I urge all of my colleagues to take a moment this week in honor of
the Week of the Young Child to think about the tens of thousands of
children you represent that could be provided a wealth of opportunity
and hope in their lives if we simply reject the President's budget
proposal and choose to invest in the future and well-being of our
children.

____________________

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. Madam Speaker, I stand once again before this
body with yet another Sunset Memorial.
It is April 15, 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
were lost on September 11th, only it happens every day.
It has now been exactly 12,867 days since the travesty 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.
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
a blind, 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.''
The phrase in the 14th amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution.
It says: ``No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.'' Mr. Speaker, protecting the
lives of our innocent citizens and their constitutional rights is why
we are all here. It is our sworn oath.
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is that clarion Declaration
of the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and
endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Every conflict and battle our Nation has
ever faced can be traced to our commitment to this core self-evident
truth. It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world. It is
who we are.
And yet Madam Speaker, another day has passed, and we in this body
have failed again to honor that foundational 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 today without the
protection that we should have given them.
Madam Speaker, let me conclude, in the hope that perhaps someone new
who heard this sunset memorial tonight will finally embrace the truth
that abortion really does kill little babies, that it hurts mothers in
ways that we can never express, and that 12,867 days spent killing
nearly 50 million unborn children in America is enough; and that the
America that rejected human slavery and marched into Europe to arrest
the Nazi Holocaust, is still courageous and compassionate enough to
find a better way for mothers and their babies than abortion on demand.
So tonight, Madam Speaker, may we each remind ourselves that our own
days in this sunshine of life are also 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 finally hear the cries
of the innocent unborn. 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 April 15, 2008--12,867 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.

____________________

THE U.S.-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern
about an action taken by this House this past week, and let me begin by
asking this House who is America's best friend in Latin America?
Well, the answer is pretty loud and clear, and that is America's best
friend in Latin America is the democratic Republic of Colombia, a
nation of 42 million people, the second largest Spanish-speaking nation
in the world, a nation which is recognized throughout Latin America
and, frankly, throughout the world as United States' most reliable
partner in counterterrorism, United States' most reliable partner in
counternarcotics. It's the Republic of Colombia.
Well, this passed week the House of Representatives, the Democratic
majority, which controls it, voted to turn its back, this Congress's
back, on our most reliable partner in Latin America, sending a terrible
signal to all of Latin America that if you are a good friend of the
United States, you're not very important and you're not a very big
priority, and when we have an agreement, we'll ignore it.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a trade promotion agreement with
Colombia and the United States. It's a good agreement. Why is it a good
agreement? Because it's a win-win-win for Illinois workers, Illinois
farmers, Illinois manufacturers. The majority of this House, an
overwhelming bipartisan majority of this House, voted earlier this past
year to pass trade preferences for the Andean region, for countries
like Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. And what the trade

[[Page 6053]]

preferences do is allow all the products that come in from Colombia
that enter the United States duty free, no taxes, no tariffs. So
agricultural products and manufactured goods made in Colombia and
produced in Colombia enter the United States duty free. However,
without the trade promotion agreement, products made in Illinois by
Illinois workers or farm goods like corn and soybeans produced by
Illinois farmers and, of course, manufacturers and workers all suffer
taxes or tariffs on U.S.- and Illinois-made goods exported to Colombia.
We have often heard from constituents that say trade's important in
Illinois and it just doesn't seem right when one country's products
come into the United States duty free but we don't get reciprocity. And
the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement gives us that reciprocity. In fact,
farm organizations will tell you that the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement
is the best ever negotiated to give U.S. farmers and growers and
producers access to a foreign market. And when it comes to manufactured
goods, 85 percent of the manufactured goods exported to Colombia would
be duty free immediately.

{time} 1930

In my district, I have 8,000 constituents, union members, who work
for a company which makes the yellow bulldozers and yellow construction
equipment. Right now, those bulldozers made in America suffer a 15
percent tariff, which means the cost of that product is 15 percent
more, making Illinois-manufactured construction equipment, like
bulldozers and mining trucks, 15 percent more expensive but also less
competitive with Asian competition.
We need this trade promotion agreement. And we need to have that
brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Because I believe if it is
brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote, the majority of this House
would agree that we need to continue to expand our markets overseas for
Illinois-manufactured goods and Illinois farm products as well as
American farm products and American manufactured goods. It is a good
agreement.
Now, there are those who say, ``Colombia, yeah, they are our partner,
and, of course, they are the oldest democracy in Latin America. But
there has been violence in that country.'' Historically they are right.
President Uribe, when he was elected, pledged to defeat the FARC, the
left-wing narcotrafficking terrorist group which has troubled the
nation of Colombia over the last 40 years. And he has made tremendous
progress.
In fact, President Uribe today enjoys 80 percent approval. Eight out
of 10 Colombians approve of the leadership of President Uribe. And if
you look at this Congress, this House of Representatives, this Congress
has an 18 percent approval rating. So clearly, the Colombians think
more of their president than the American people do this Congress. And
at the same time that he has made progress defeating the left-wing
narcotrafficking FARC, 73 percent of the Colombian people believe he
has made Colombia more secure and safer while respecting human rights.
In fact, today the murder rate in Colombia is lower than in Washington,
D.C. It is lower than in Baltimore. In fact, it is safer in Colombia
than it is in our Nation's Capital.
The U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement is a good agreement for
American workers, American farmers and American manufacturers. Let's
bring it to a vote.

____________________

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOTING RIGHTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.

General Leave

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this is a special day for all Americans,
none more so than the people I represent, the residents of the District
of Columbia. And so I have come this evening to offer some remarks,
remarks that I think are particularly justified today when the
residents of the District of Columbia, like all other American
citizens, are paying their Federal income taxes. The difference is they
are doing so without any voting representation on the floor of the
House or the Senate.
First, I begin with some gratitude to my colleagues, the so-called
Blue Dogs, for whom this hour had been claimed, but who gave it to me
this evening because of the subject matter of this special order. I
very much appreciate their support. For those of you who don't know who
the Blue Dogs are, they are the more conservative Members of the House.
They supported the D.C. Voting Rights bill that indeed passed the
House, one of the first.
We hadn't been here 6 months, I don't think we had been here more
than 4 months before this bill to give the District of Columbia
citizens, the citizens of the Nation's Capital, voting rights only in
this chamber, the people's House. It was indeed passed by the House of
Representatives, mind you, the only House that is affected. In a Nation
known more for its incrementalism than for rapid change to effect
justice, we have accepted the notion that we must begin with the House,
the people's House. After more than 200 years of meeting every
obligation that has been met by every other citizen, we think it is not
too much to ask that the residents of the Nation's Capital have the
vote at least in the people's House. We are asking for no more than
that.
Our thanks go especially to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
who made it a priority to pass this bill and put her full energy behind
it. She was willing to bring it to the floor. She made it clear that
she, as the leader, the first woman to lead the House of
Representatives, wanted to put her signature on this bill and asked
four Members on both sides of the aisle to support it. Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer, a longtime supporter of this bill, as well, put all of his
energy in it. Particularly when it was stopped first by a parliamentary
maneuver, he worked tirelessly until he got this bill passed. He has
been with us every step of the way. These two leaders have stood for
full representation and equality for Americans in so many ways. No one
should be surprised at the leadership they have given us on this bill.
I have to very especially mention Congressman Tom Davis who doggedly
started us on what has been a truly bipartisan path. When I was in the
minority and he indeed became the chief sponsor of the House-only bill,
I discovered indeed a partner for us. The State of Utah barely missed
getting a House vote in the last census. And they missed it for reasons
I have to put into the Record. Utah sends many of its citizens who
willingly agree to go away and become missionaries when they are young
for a few years of their lives. They, of course, are missionaries for
their Mormon church. And they are coming home to their families. Like
others who come home, the State of Utah wanted them counted since they
remained residents. They took the matter all the way to the Supreme
Court. And because of the way the Census Bureau and the administrative
process had ruled, the Court allowed the census to stand. And all of
these missionaries exercising their freedom of religion, their freedom
of speech, while being residents of their State, lost their State a
seat.
To say the least, residents of Utah were not joyful about this. And
they have joined us in what would seem to be the example par excellence
of win-win in our country. A heavily Republican district and State,
some would say the most Republican State in the union, a big city in
the United States tends to be Democratic, this one is, joined together.
It's a wash politically. Nobody gains and nobody loses. Why hasn't this
bill passed?
Well, it has almost passed. And we will get into that in a minute.
Just a

[[Page 6054]]

few more indications of gratitude. Henry Waxman, chairman of the
committee that has direct jurisdiction, along with another chairman,
John Conyers, were extraordinary leaders in this process. I mentioned
Utah. I thank Governor Jon Huntsman for coming here to testify about
the importance of the bill and the entire Utah delegation,
Representatives Bishop, Cannon, and Matheson.
I particularly thank the 219 Democrats and 22 Republicans who won a
vote of 241-177 and passed this bill last year. And may I thank the 8
Republicans and 49 Democrats who have brought us so close that it is
hard to believe that we are not already there.
Only in the other body is 57 percent not a majority. The Senate has
required 60 votes. We are three votes short. We are so close. I have
every reason to believe that we will, in fact, this year pass the D.C.
Voting Rights Act, creating a historic 110th Congress that every
Member, I think, will be proud of.
I have to thank the local and national civil rights organizations
that have been a formidable force spreading around the country the
message. There are too many of them to name on the local level. The
great leader has been DCVote Ilir Zerka and his army of residents in
the region and in the city carrying a message for us, the leadership
conference on civil rights, the Nation's great leader on civil rights
matters has been a major figure in this bill. We could not possibly
have gotten this far without them, along with every major civil rights
organization in the country.
I particularly thank my own mayor, Adrian Fenty, and city council
chair, Vincent Gray, who joined every mayor and city council of the
District of Columbia in supporting our residents and this bill. And I
especially thank the residents of the District of Columbia, living and
dead, who have fought for equal citizenship over the ages.
I have not yet mentioned my Senate partners, but they have been
equally important to this bill. You don't pass a bill just in the
House. Senator Joe Lieberman was the lead Democratic sponsor.
Consistent with the way he has helped me on voting rights in every
iteration, and there have been several different kinds of bills, he
became the lead sponsor here.
A very special word of thanks goes to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.
Some of you may think that Orrin Hatch comes to this because, after
all, he represents Utah. And he does. But had you had the pleasure of
hearing Senator Hatch in the committee hearings, you would understand
that he is moved by a deep principle about voting rights. His principal
reason for voting rights dominated much of what he had to say about
people who pay taxes and go to war without representation. I thank
Senator Orrin Hatch who was a good friend of mine before this bill. He
has endeared himself to me in ways I will never be able to pay by the
way in which he has stood fast with us, yes, because his State is
involved. Of course, that is his primary obligation. But making it
clear in the way he discusses the bill that there is a deeply rooted
principle in his support.
The many supporters of this bill will forgive me for not making this
a calling of the roll. But I come to the floor because on tax day in
the District of Columbia, people have gone all over the city to assure
residents of the very substantial progress we are making. DCVote and
its coalition have been all across the United States targeting seven
States and have done a remarkable job. I have a little bit to say about
that.
What I want to do this evening during this special order hour is to
essentially discuss this issue from three perspectives. Whose rights
are we talking about? What barriers are there? And whose responsibility
is it to remedy this matter?

{time} 1945

I start with whose rights they are, because the greatest frustration
I have had as a Member of the House is that most Americans do not know
that 600,000 people live in the Nation's Capital and don't have the
same rights as they have. A lot of them have been in the armed services
with people in Washington, DC. They come here, 20 million of them,
every year. There is no indication, until they begin to see license
plates that say ``no taxation without representation'' on those
official license plates, which was put there precisely to relieve our
frustration that most people simply do not know.
I have a word to say about that, because increasingly people do know
and support us. According to the Washington Post poll, 61 percent say
they support the bill I have come to the floor to speak to tonight.
That is close to an American consensus today.
Why would people be for the vote? They are Americans, that is why. Do
you really think that in this country today, at war, a country where
love of country is manifest in everything we do, they will do anything
but say that people who have fought, yes, and died in every war since
the country was created, including the war that created the country
itself, the American Revolutionary War, that people who pay taxes the
same way they do, are just like them, should not have representation?
It is a thoroughly American idea. So don't be surprised that 61 percent
today support this bill, in the House only, because that is all that is
before the other body, the Senate, as we speak.
Who are these people? We thought we would let you see exactly who we
are talking about. This man's name is Larry Chapman, a resident of the
District of Columbia. I am proud to represent him. I don't know him. I
checked him out. He lives here. I represent him. By the way, note his
uniform. He is a firefighter. He is a man who risks his life for
whoever is here, a Member of Congress, a visitor, a resident, a
regional resident.
I don't represent this man, Jayme Heflin. He lives in Maryland. He
does the same thing for Maryland that Mr. Chapman does for the District
of Columbia.
I don't think you will find an American citizen, if you went out with
a microphone, who thinks that Larry Chapman, who lives in the District
of Columbia, should not have representation in the Congress, someone
who can vote on war or peace or raising or lowering taxes, and that
Jayme Heflin should.
That is who I represent. The difference between these two men cannot
be seen in their faces, cannot be seen in their jobs. The only
difference is where they live. They live within a few miles of one
another, because Maryland is part of our region, a region without
borders, as a matter of fact. If you go to Maryland, you won't even
know you are there.
Both of them pay Federal taxes. Both of them don't like it, and both
of them do it. There should be no difference between Larry Chapman and
Jayme Heflin. There is no difference. The only difference is a
difference that only this body can correct.
Why do I say only this body? Because the Congress has exclusive
jurisdiction over the Nation's Capital. The Framers were intent upon
one thing and one thing only when they set up the Nation's Capital. It
certainly wasn't to deprive us of the vote. It was to make sure we
weren't in a State, because you couldn't tell when the State's
jurisdiction would conflict with the Federal jurisdiction. That is the
only principle that was at stake. And, indeed, all the evidence is that
the last thing they would have done would have been to give a vote to
Mr. Heflin and not to Mr. Chapman.
The reason we know it is that four signers of the Constitution which
gave the Congress this jurisdiction were from Maryland and Virginia,
which contributed the land for the city where we are today, two from
Maryland and two from Virginia. They contributed land on which a
sizable number of their own constituents were living.
They made sure that in the 10-year transition period during which the
land was being shifted, that their residents would still have the vote.
But once, of course, it left the jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia,
it was up to the Congress. And the first Congress, in so many words,
promised that when the land came after 10 years under the

[[Page 6055]]

complete jurisdiction, that these residents would indeed continue to
have the vote.
We know it for sure, because not only were these residents of
Maryland and Virginia living in the territory, but among them were men
who had fought in the Revolutionary War. The one slogan that every
school child knows from that war is we are fighting against no taxation
without representation. It is inconceivable and it is impossible and it
simply did not happen that the Framers of the Constitution from
Maryland and Virginia gave the land and said, take away the vote from
the people we represent once you have jurisdiction.
Maryland couldn't give us the vote once we became the Nation's
Capital. Virginia couldn't do it. Only the Congress can do it. The
Constitution itself makes clear that the grant of exclusive
jurisdiction to the Congress means that the Congress is empowered to
offer this correction that has been needed for much too long.
This is another resident of the District of Columbia whose work all
of us would admire, because she is a teacher. Her name is Chandra
Jackson-Sounders, teaching and counseling in the D.C. public schools
for 17 years. A native Washingtonian, like me. She pays Federal income
tax, like all the rest of us who live here. We are not immune from
that. There she is, teaching children.
Who would deny this young woman, who has committed herself to one of
the hardest jobs in the country, who pays hefty federal income taxes,
the same rights that they have? No American. No one imbued with the
spirit of our Constitution or of the native ethic, the ethic that gave
birth to the country, no taxation without representation.
The more people know about D.C. voting rights, the more support we
have. I ought to thank Stephen Colbert right here on the House floor,
because at least four times he has invited me on the Colbert Report to
make fun of the District of Columbia for not having voting rights,
until under cross-examination one day on his program I found out that
he was born in the District of Columbia himself. He has managed to get
himself in the portrait gallery, to be sure, either in the men's room
or in a corner close to it.
But I must here pay tribute to Stephen, whom I call Colbert, because,
more than all we have been able to do, he has gotten the message out
that 600,000 people live in the Nation's Capital, pay taxes, and do not
have the same representation as they do. He makes fun of me. That is
why I go on and allow it. ``You must not be in the United States.'' He
said, ``Who could you possibly represent?'' ``Why don't you move into
the country?'' That is what I have to take.
But taking what Colbert has thrown at me has gotten people to
understand, yes, through his jostling and joking, what is a very
serious matter; that in a country that is trying to bring democracy all
over the world, including particularly Iraq, where we have given so
many American lives, over 4,000, there are people right here who don't
have the same rights that people from the District of Columbia are, as
I speak, fighting to get for the residents of Iraq, Afghanistan and so
many other countries.
Support for D.C. voting rights keeps going up. I noted earlier that
61 percent say that they are specifically for that bill, because that
is the question we asked. You ask them the question, this is the kind
of response you get. ``Do you support equal voting rights for the
people of the District of Columbia?'' In 1999, you got 72 percent of
Americans saying yes. In January 2005, you got 82 percent.
Thank you, Colbert, D.C. Vote, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
and all of those who have helped us get the message out. Eighty-two
percent of the American people. Not a surprising figure, not in the
United States of America.
What you may believe is that, well, they have got a lot of liberals
up here, and what do you expect? A very scientific poll was done behind
these figures. With 72 percent and 82 percent, you know there must be
some bipartisanship here.
But are they all piled up in one part of the country? Are they all
really young people or older people? Who are these people who support
D.C. voting rights? ``Norton says who the people are who want voting
rights. Well, who are these people who registered these large numbers,
61 percent for this bill, up to 82 percent if you ask the bald question
about equal voting rights in Congress for the people who live in the
Nation's Capital?''
This is perhaps the most important data, and it is fascinating for
the Senate in particular to bear in mind, because it breaks down who we
are talking about in the American public.
Notice how far out the blue bar goes. That is because there is no
support less than 77 percent among all adults, and 82 percent is that
figure I just showed you. Women, 86 percent; men, 78 percent.
Let's look at the age groups. Is this all a young persons' thing, or
what? Young people, well, they were raised to believe that democracy is
for everybody. They are off the charts, 87 percent. But look at 35-54.
They are at 78 percent. And look at 55 years old and above, many of
whom were raised at a time when many Americans did not have equal
rights and perhaps imbued that culture. 55-years-old and above, 82
percent of the American people support equal voting rights for the
people who live in the Nation's Capital.
Sometimes we find that some parts of the country favor certain kinds
of action more than others. You are quite aware that some parts of the
country are more military, some parts of the country are considered
more liberal, so it was important to know who are we talking about. And
this I found perhaps the most fascinating part of the revelation.

{time} 2000

Northeast, 84 percent of the people; midwest, 80 percent of the
people, these are for equal voting rights; south, ladies and gentlemen,
put aside your stereotypes, 84 percent of southerners support equal
voting rights in Congress for the people of the District of Columbia;
west, 80 percent.
So the south and the northeast give us the largest majority or super
majorities, 84 percent each with midwest and west right behind them at
80 percent. In this metropolitan area, where they know us best, have
seen us at our best and our worst, the metropolitan area includes
Virginia, Maryland, and the figure is 82 percent.
In the nonmetropolitan area, beyond the counties immediately
surrounding the District where people tend to be more conservative,
hardly any difference, 83 percent there support it; 82 percent in the
immediate area.
I am still looking, friends, for some break in the public of the kind
we regularly see on things like guns or the military or the war. It
will not be found in this graph, not on this Tax Day, not tomorrow, not
in the America of the 21st century, maybe in the America of the 19th
century, early 20th century.
But now for decades, I believe it would be difficult to find
Americans who would stand up and salute the proposition that people who
are paying Federal income taxes, that people who are fighting and dying
in war are being denied a say-so on those issues in this House.
You break it down even further to see who you are talking about, how
about those who have a family member in the military, 82 percent
support D.C. voting rights. How about a favorite that is often cited as
difference among Americans, regularly attend services, we note at a
moment when the Pope has just arrived in town, but we see that that's
82 percent of those who regularly attend religious services.
We, of course, have family or friends living in D.C., I wouldn't even
cite those. You would expect those people to perhaps be more aware and
more inclined to be with us.
Registered voters, 81 percent of registered voters support equal
voting rights for the residents of the city, and here is one that
cannot be put aside, because this is the great divider, Republicans and
Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of independents, 87
percent of Democrats, no statistical difference even by party on so

[[Page 6056]]

basic a matter as whether or not the people I represent, and I should
be required to do whatever this chamber says, along with the others,
and not have any say, utterly and thoroughly un-American even to state
such a proposition.
Well, the Republicans who supported us in the House on this bill, led
by Tom Davis, including a number of others who voted for us, didn't
have this figure before them. They had a gut instinct of what it means
to be an American.
There are any number of them who could be quoted. Among the most
eloquent was Representative Mike Pence, who actually wrote out what was
in his head and published it and posted it, ``Why I Voted for D.C.
Representation in the House,'' and the senior Senator Lugar, one of the
eight Republicans who voted for this bill. But it was Mike who started
it here, because the bill started here.
Let me quote from Representative Mike Pence, a leader of most
conservative matters here, understood to be a leader in the House and
particularly a much-respected conservative leader. He is a wonderfully
affable man, but he would be the first to note that he and I have
considerable differences on issues that come before this House.
But at the time this bill was pending, Representative Pence wrote,
``The fact that more than half a million of Americans living in the
District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in
Congress is clearly a historic wrong and justice demands that it be
addressed.''
He goes on to say, ``The old book tells us what is required,'' and he
quotes the Bible, ``do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with Your
God.''
Then he says, ``I believe that justice demands we right this historic
wrong. The American people should have representation in the people's
House. I believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from
Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all Americans
regardless of race or political creed. And I believe humility demands
that we do so in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws and
traditions. The D.C. voting bill gets this test, and I am honored to
have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our
constitutional republic ever closer to a more perfect union.'' Those
are the words of Representative Mike Pence. I believe they are words
that history will remember.
The support continues to grow, the support reflected here, just to
name a few of the States that have been visited, not by me but by
residents in the city of the region. I want to thank the citizens of
Oregon; of New Hampshire, where a whole resolution has been introduced
to support the bill; of Montana, where the editorial boards of the
major newspapers, in Montana, the Butte Chamber of Commerce, have
accorded the residents of the District of Columbia every courtesy in
meeting with them and the papers have editorialized for voting rights.
I named those States because DC Vote--Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights have targeted those States among others.
I particularly note a resolution in New Hampshire, pending in both
the New Hampshire House and Senate that is quite extraordinary. It
expresses regret that New Hampshire's two U.S. Senators voted against
the D.C. voting rights bill and calling upon them to correct that in
the next vote.
As one of the sponsors, Representative Cindy Rosenwald said, and I am
quoting her, ``We are, here in our small corner of the country,
democracy's most passionate supporters. Therefore, I believe we should
expect the same level of commitment and passion for representative
democracy from those elected officials who represent New Hampshire in
Congress.''
Thank you, New Hampshire. I thank many others whose efforts today, up
to 10 States, I cannot specifically acknowledge in the time allotted to
me.
I bring you deep gratitude from the residents of the District of
Columbia who have only my voice, no voice in the Senate, only my voice,
and whose voice, of their own, you will see in the Internet but who do
not have ways to reach you, which is why I am here this evening.
I must thank, in particular, the legal scholars who have come
forward. In searching for legal comment, we found many willing to come
forward, and from constitutional scholars of various views, there were
any number who were particularly helpful in expressing and answering
the hard questions that have been raised, hard questions, not because
most Americans would consider them such, but if you happen to be a
constitutional lawyer, and I, myself, practice constitutional law,
these questions become closer questions than if you are an American who
does not have to take the Constitution into effect in forming your own
view.
I particularly thank Kenneth Starr, former judge Kenneth Starr;
former judge, Patricia Wald. Kenneth Starr is a Republican. Patricia
Wald is a Democrat. Both have testified for the bill.
I thank Professor Viet Dinh who has come forward in a quite
extraordinary way. He is the point man on constitutional issues, or
was, when Mr. Ashcroft was the attorney general. He has been, perhaps,
the foremost conservative scholar to come forward for the bill.
I particularly thank Walter Smith, a former corporation counsel, or
attorney general, as it is now called. Richard Bress of Latham &
Watkins, Walter Smith of D.C. Appleseed, these are different scholars
who are from different parts of the constitutional spectrum who have
come forward to be helpful.
But you I think that I ought to cite conservative scholars. Frankly,
those are the scholars on whom we have chiefly relied because we
believe that if we relied chiefly on Judge Wald or Walter Smith or many
others who have helped us, then we would have greater difficulty in
showing that this bill is eminently constitutional.
Remember, it's the constitutional issue to which the opponents have
been pushed back. They can't make an argument that sounds in American
terms that the average person could understand. So they go into the
Constitution.
That, my friend, is defamation to the framers, because what they are
saying, hey, the framers did it to you. We don't have anything to do
with it.
Of course, if the Framers did it to us, then we must pass the bill
and let the only part of our Government that is empowered to tell us
that do so, and that's the Supreme Court.
But, no, they sit back and fancy themselves constitutional scholars
for the purpose of saying that 600,000 residents who pay taxes like
they do, have served in the country's wars, should not have the same
rights they do. This in the 21st century, no less.
Professor Viet Dinh, who served as a scholar, who served in the Bush
Justice Department under former Attorney General Ashcroft, and,
therefore, advised the whole Justice Department, he was the man who
advised them on constitutional matters, testified there are no
indications, textual or otherwise, to suggest that the Framers intended
that congressional authority, under the District clause, that's the
District of Columbia clause, extraordinary and plenary power in all
other respects, would not extend to grant District residents
representation in Congress.
You see, we are left with either the Framers intended to have the
people who lived in the Nation's Capital they just set up without the
same rights as everybody else, or they intended somebody to be able to
give it. Now, if they intended us not to have the same rights then we,
of course, have to amend the Constitution.
But I would suggest that unless you can cite evidence of somebody
getting up and saying that, that you have got to find a better reason.

{time} 2015

To hide behind the Framers is an act close to cowardice. If you think
we shouldn't have it, you should say why. Take the responsibility, but
do not say that the Framers of the Constitution from Maryland and the
Framers of the Constitution from Virginia meant to disenfranchise their
own residents. Do not say that the Framers of the Constitution meant
once you crossed the District line, you would lose the rights

[[Page 6057]]

you had on the other side in every other State of the Union.
The opponents rest on one word, and that is the Constitution says
that the vote in the House should go to Members of States. They say ah-
hah, the District is not a State; ergo, no vote for you people.
Well, the fact is that since the passage of the Constitution, this
government, this Congress, has defined the District as a State in over
500 provisions of United States Code. The only way in which we are not
defined as a State respects our voting rights, and that brings me to
the floor today.
Cite chapter and verse to prove that, and I shall. And what I am
citing is not only the language of the Constitution, I am citing the
Supreme Court of the United States who interprets the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has approved action by this Congress equating the
District of Columbia with the States for constitutional purposes. Here
is the language from the Constitution that the Supreme Court over the
years says includes the District of Columbia although the word
``State'' is used.
``Commerce among the States'' taken to court, the District is not a
State and shouldn't be included in the commerce clause. Answer from the
Supreme Court: For these purposes, the Nation's Capital is included
when the word ``State'' is used.
Suits between citizens of different States, means something special
for the District of Columbia, it was alleged, not a State, took it to
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says citizens of different States
of course includes the Nation's Capital. They said this is not what we
meant, we only meant that the District of Columbia would not be a part
of a State. We set up something that for lack of a better word we
called a District of Columbia.
What, is the Commonwealth of Virginia not a State? Are they not a
State because they are called a Commonwealth? Is the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts not a State? How in the world can one hinge a right so
precious in this democracy on the use of the word ``State'' when it has
been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in decade
after decade to include the District of Columbia?
I must cite on this April 15, Tax Day, my very favorite. If indeed
States means or does not mean the District of Columbia, the people I
represent want every dime we have paid to the Federal Treasury back
because the 16th amendment says there shall be direct taxes by the
Federal Government. Direct taxes only on citizens of the States; if we
are not a State, you owe us a lot of money. It is almost silly to even
try to argue from so slim a use of language.
When one reads the Federalist Papers, if one reads American history,
if one reads decade after decade where the matter of State has been
challenged when someone was trying to pay less taxes or trying to get
out of the commerce clause, and in a dozen other ways I could name and
the Supreme Court has simply pushed them back, I don't think you would
be quick to continue to make that argument.
I want to especially thank the Blue Dogs again for their generosity
in giving me their hour. I want to thank all of those on both sides of
the aisle who have rallied after more than two centuries finally to
this idea.
I want to leave you with a picture in your mind, this young woman,
Chandrai Jackson-Saunders who pays her Federal income taxes and teaches
our children and doesn't have the vote.
I am moved to tears and to laughter by a series of cartoons making
fun of our country for not giving the residents of the District of
Columbia a vote. Here is one that happened to be in the Washington
Post. It says ``Import Democracy'' on a raised placard, then in small
print at the bottom it says ``No Invasion Necessary.'' No, all that is
necessary is that we face up to 200 years of obligation.
For me, I confess that this matter is deeply personal. I am the third
generation of Holmes family to live here. My great grandfather, Richard
Holmes, was really born in Virginia as a slave. One day he left the
plantation. He just walked away; nobody must have been looking. In my
family no one says that he gathered together in some kind of heroic
way--he left the plantation--and got as far as here and started our
family.
My father was born and raised in District public schools, just like
my grandfather. My grandfather entered the D.C. Fire Department in
1902. We have long been without our rights here. So for me it is first
and foremost a matter for the people I represent.
But in the interest of revealing all that is concerned, hiding
nothing, it is hard for me to say that there is not a personal matter
associated here, particularly when I see it is in the Senate that the
bill is now awaiting 60 votes, although it already has 57 percent of
the Senate, because what I remember as a child growing up without a
mayor, without a city council, there was no representation whatsoever
here. The place was ruled by the Congress. The President appointed
three commissioners; no democracy of any kind. And it was a segregated
city. Oh, how segregated. The schools were not integrated until Brown
v. Board of Education.
When I was at Dunbar High School and had mostly finished high school,
the District was one of six Brown v. Board of Education cases. So the
notion of filibuster rings far too personal to me. I remember the
filibusters of the Senate, my friends, as a child. In the Senate, the
N-word was routinely used. This place was entirely controlled by
southern Democrats who controlled every subcommittee and every
committee because racial rhetoric and racial prejudice were used to get
them back to the House each and every year.
It gives me great grief and sadness to see that Republicans have not
been in the forefront of this bill except for those who have stepped
forward and unabashedly embraced the bill and Republican traditions
because it was after the Civil War that the District first got a
delegate and home rule. It was the Republican Congress that first gave
us democracy. It was the so-called radical Republicans who in the
Nation's Capital exercised their right and their obligation to see that
democracy came here. It was the end of Reconstruction and the Tildon-
Hayes compromise with the withdrawal of Federal troops from the South
and the resurrection of Democrats that overturned home rule for the
District of Columbia and sent a delegate who had only a term or two
back to where he came from. It was Republicans who were in the
leadership then. In the name of the great leaders who gave birth to
their party, you would expect them to be in the leadership now.
The interesting thing is that this is a now-majority African American
city, but that is a recent vintage. The segregated city I grew up in
was a majority white city. It didn't become majority black until close
to 1960. Black people in the minority took a lot of white people down
with them because the fact is that race played a central role in the
denial of voting rights and home rule to the District of Columbia.
Today it is partisanship. But it was unabashedly race. Even though
blacks were a minority, there were enough blacks here so that southern
Democrats wanted to be sure there was no home rule and no
representation, even a delegate. They were not bashful about it.
To quote one Alabama Democratic Senator, ``The Negroes flocked in,
and there was only one way out, and that was to deny suffrage and power
to every human being in the District,'' that means regardless of race,
creed or color.

{time} 2030

I don't want to hide from whence cometh what gave birth to the issue
here.
Senator Ed Brooke, a native Washingtonian, became the first popularly
elected Black Senator, born and raised in the District of Columbia,
went to the same high school I did. But he had to go outside the
District of Columbia to get any vote at all, and certainly a vote in
the Senate.
So there's a very sorry racial history behind it all. The last thing
Republicans want to do is to attach their partisanship to that history
because they're not a part of that history. That

[[Page 6058]]

history was led by Democrats, and mostly southern Democrats.
Now, the Democratic Party, to its great credit, has taken that off of
itself, scrubbed that terrible stain, that racial stain off. To their
great credit, the Republicans joined us when we reauthorized the 1965
Voting Rights Act.
There is no difference, no difference whatsoever here. There's no
difference when you are talking about the District of Columbia which,
in the Vietnam war, lost more men than did 10 States; in World War II,
lost more men than did four States; World War I, lost more men than did
three States, and the Korean War, lost more than did eight States. We
have fought, died, bled for the country we love.
The notion that there would be a Member who'd have to come to the
floor to ask for such a right in 2008 should be unthinkable.
I particularly, tonight, dedicate these remarks not only to those who
paid their taxes today, but to those who've given their lives in Iraq
and Afghanistan and most recently, Darryl Dent, the D.C. National
Guard, Specialist Darryl Dent, Army Reservist Lieutenant Colonel Paul
Kimbrough, Marine Lance Corporal Gregory MacDonald, Marine Lieutenant
Colonel Kevin M. Shea, among thousands over the years that we have sent
to war, proudly so.
I dedicate these remarks to Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of
the U.S. Naval Academy is still living. There have been at least 20
Blacks who had gone to the Naval Academy. They had to be what we called
super Black. They were driven out by the most horrendous racial
harassment. The story of sacrifices made--what's my time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Tsongas). Ten seconds.
Ms. NORTON. The story of sacrifices made is not a story I should need
to tell. All I should need to say is what I leave you with this
evening, with my gratitude for your support and friendship.
I am an American. I represent 600,000 Americans. Please do all you
can to see to it that we are treated as you would want to be treated,
like other Americans.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today is Tax Day and it is
the day that D.C. residents pay their Federal income taxes. Yet D.C.
residents remain without a vote. D.C. residents enjoy many of the
benefits of U.S. citizenship but they lack the vote.
The rest of the Nation votes as District residents pay their taxes
and serve in wars abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan. Andy Shallal, a D.C.
citizen said it best, ``People like me of Iraqi ancestry and even my
son, who was born in the United States, are entitled to vote in the
Iraqi's election due in large part to the service of the citizens of
the District of Columbia and other Americans who have fought and died
in Iraq.'' In spite of D.C. residents' service in foreign wars and even
in the American Revolution, and every war since where U.S. was
involved, D.C. residents cannot vote in their own country.
Tax Day is a bitter reminder to the Nation that the founders of our
country who staged their revolution for representation would then deny
representation to residents of their very own capital city. Professor
Viet Dinh, President Bush's former assistant attorney general for
constitutional matters, has wiped away the major argument that because
the District is not a state, its American citizens cannot vote in the
House by detailing the many ways in which ``since 1805 the Supreme
Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the
District as a state and Congress has repeatedly exercised this
authority.'' My favorite is the 16th amendment which requires only that
citizens of states pay Federal income taxes. Why then have District
residents continuously been taxed without representation?
There is a terrible racial stain that has been at the core of the
denial of the rights of D.C. citizens. Congress required the same
racial segregation in schools and public accommodations in D.C. and
other parts of the South until the 1954 Brown decision. As one southern
Senator put it, ``The Negroes . . . flocked in . . . and there was only
one way out . . . and that was to deny . . . suffrage entirely to every
human being in the District.''
Former Republican Senator Edward Brooke, a native Washingtonian and
the Nation's first popularly elected black Senator wrote, ``The
experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in our
segregated armed forces perhaps explains why my party's work on the
Voting Rights Act reauthorization last year and on the pending D.C.
House Voting Rights Act has been so important to me personally. The
irony of course, is that I had to leave my hometown to get
representation in Congress and to become a Member.''
Today, on Tax Day, we need to move to abolish the irony and the
tragedy of the many who have come to the Nation's capital seeking
freedom for well over 200 years. It is on this day, that D.C. residents
pay their Federal income taxes without a vote.
Presently, only three votes are needed for Senate passage of the D.C.
Voting Rights Bill. I am a supporter of the bill in the House. I appeal
to your conscience and ask for your vote so that finally there will be
a vote for your fellow Americans here, who have paid for this precious
right many times over in blood and tears. Support the voting rights
bill today.

____________________

COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It is true that today
is the day that the American people have their obligation to pay taxes
for the American government to continue to function. And obviously,
there are many good things that the Federal Government does, and there
are many not so good things that the Federal Government does.
But one of the things that I think is very important for us to focus
attention on, especially as we deal with a challenging economy, is the
need for us to ensure that, as stewards of those taxpayer dollars,
those dollars fund this institution, the greatest deliberative body
known to man, and we need to ensure that we put into place policies
that will encourage strong, dynamic, economic growth and to make sure
that there are opportunities for every single American. And Madam
Speaker, we're going to talk about that this evening.
I have to say that my original intentions for this special order were
a little different than they are going to end up being tonight. I'd
planned to join tonight with several of my colleagues who have spent
time in Colombia. I'd planned to talk about what I've personally
witnessed there, and I'd invited many of my colleagues to do the same.
I'd hoped to make this a bipartisan endeavor, and I extended
invitations to several of my Democratic colleagues to participate this
evening. And I will say that I still do hope that we might have a
chance to do that. And one of our Democratic colleagues did come up to
me and say that he had hoped to participate.
I thought that this was very important, because I knew that when the
President sent, a week ago today, when he sent the implementing
legislation for the U.S/Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a 60-day clock,
under trade promotion authority, would begin. We would have 60
legislative days to hold a vote on the agreement. This meant that the
House of Representatives would face a vote on the U.S./Colombia Free
Trade Agreement some time in probably late July. That would leave us 3
months for debate, discussion, education, and enlightenment about what
this agreement would mean to the American people.
However, despite the ample time granted under trade promotion
authority, I knew that many of my colleagues, particularly my
Democratic colleagues, remained deeply ambivalent on the trade
agreement itself. We certainly saw that as we had this debate last
week.
For this reason, it was my hope that this special order this evening
would be opening the 3-month discussion in a bipartisan way, and what I
wanted to do was I wanted to shift the focus away from the free trade
agreement, and I'd hoped that a group of Republicans and Democrats
who've gone to Colombia could come together here on the House floor to
simply share our experiences and describe what we've seen in Colombia,
over the past year, or at least a half a year.
I knew that much of the free trade agreement debate would hinge on
the

[[Page 6059]]

current situation, as it exists in Colombia, what progress has been
made, what steps has the Colombian government taken.
I wanted this debate to stay grounded in facts and a full
understanding of the Colombia, of 2008, not a caricature of the
Colombia past. I'd thought that bipartisan, firsthand testimony would
further that goal of allowing the American people and our colleagues to
understand the changes that have taken place in Colombia.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the landscape here in the House was
drastically altered last week when my California colleague, Speaker
Pelosi, took the unprecedented step, never before had this been done,
but it was a step of changing the Rules of the House in order to block
a vote on the free trade agreement.
In one fell swoop, she ended 3 months, what would be the beginning,
and tonight would have been part of that, of substantive, bipartisan
deliberation before it even had the chance to begin. Apparently, she
didn't like her odds in what would clearly have been a fair fight, so
she changed the rules in the middle of the game.
The condemnation from around the country came swiftly. Now, I have
control of the floor now for an hour, and I could easily fill the
entire 1 hour simply by reading the scathing editorials that have come
about over the past week reproaching the Democratic leadership for
their petulant act. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the
Washington Post, hardly mouthpieces for Republicans or President Bush.
And even Speaker Pelosi's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco
Chronicle. All, Madam Speaker, have had the harshest of words for the
dangerous and unprecedented action that was taken here last week.
Now, I'll read just a few of those highlights. I mentioned Speaker
Pelosi's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, a paper that
I actually enjoy reading myself, but again, far from being a Republican
mouthpiece. They accuse Speaker Pelosi of ``pandering'' and ``playing
politics.''
It points out that the decision to block a vote on the agreement is
especially egregious, considering that she represents a region that
heavily depends on exports for its economic competitiveness and job
creation, particularly through its ports.
My hometown paper, the Los Angeles Times, stated it very plainly, and
I quote. ``Halting the vote wasn't about the U.S. economy and wasn't
about Colombia. It was about politics.'' That's what the Los Angeles
Times, again, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, had to say.
It points out that the FTA creates quite a bind for the Democratic
leadership because what is good for their party is bad for the United
States of America.
It highlights the current imbalance in our trade relationship. We
have an open market, yet face barriers in Colombia.
I'll say that again. And Los Angeles Times pointed that out, Madam
Speaker. We allow the rest of the world, including Colombia now, under
the ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Agreement, we allow them access
to the U.S. consumer market. All this agreement that we had hoped to be
debating now, but the clock has stopped on that. All this agreement
would do was level that playing field and allow U.S. workers to have a
chance to send their products into Colombia.
The New York Times, in its editorial, Madam Speaker, emphasizes not
just the economic consequences but the foreign policy implications as
well. It declares that last week's actions ``reduce the United States'
credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond,'' adding that it
``serves human rights in Colombia no good'' whatsoever. The cause of
human rights, about which many of our colleagues rarely talk, and which
we're all concerned about, would do no good by not proceeding with
consideration.
The New York Times is certainly, as I said, no knee-jerk supporter of
the agreement. Actually, they, last year, in the New York Times,
proposed postponing the consideration. And that was last year. And yet
this year they are strong proponents of our moving ahead with this.
The Washington Post, Madam Speaker, was the quickest of all the major
papers to condemn Speaker Pelosi's decision, equating the move to
telling Colombia to ``drop dead.'' That's what the Washington Post had
to say, and calling into question the Democrats credibility and
judgment.
The message from around the Nation has been clear and unequivocal.
The unprecedented rule change was a grave mistake that should be
corrected immediately by proceeding with a vote. The damage described
in those editorials is twofold, economic and international. Now, I
would add an additional level to that that really hasn't been pointed
to in a lot of these editorials, the institutional damage that has been
done.
Now, first the economic damage. As I said just a moment ago, the
Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress renewed just a few weeks
ago, allows all Colombian goods, virtually all Colombian goods to enter
the United States duty free. They have full access to our market, and
we don't get the same treatment today. American goods face an average
of 14 percent tariff on goods that we are sending into the Colombian
market, with agricultural products facing particularly steep barriers.
These preferences, like all of our preference system, have enjoyed
overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. So Democrats and
Republicans have come together to say that we should allow these
Colombian goods to come into the United States, their products, whether
it's coffee, cut flowers, bananas, it allows them to virtually tariff
free come into United States. So Democrats and Republicans alike said
that's good for our consumers.
And yet, this free trade agreement, which would end the imbalance and
extend that same preferential treatment for American exports, is
opposed by the Democratic leadership.
It's a bizarre quirk of American politics. The Democrats always
support trade as charity. They'll gladly give away one-sided trade
without a second thought. But as soon as we propose to make it
reciprocal and create a direct benefit for our own workers as well,
they cry foul. To add to the absurdity, they do it in the name of
protecting American workers.
Now, we're in a time, as I said, today is Tax Day, April 15. We're
dealing, unfortunately, with an economic slowdown, and there is a great
deal of economic anxiety throughout the United States of America and in
other parts of the world. You might think that we could finally put
politics aside and make the rational, logical decision to give American
workers equal treatment and to protect American exports by creating new
markets for U.S. goods and services. But unfortunately, and bizarrely,
that's apparently not the case. By blocking a vote on the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement, the Democratic leadership has blocked a clear win for
our exports and the workers who produce those exports.

{time} 2045

The second form of damage that has been done is in the international
arena. Again, we wander into the absurd. Time and again, I hear my
Democratic colleagues decry what they call our diminished standing in
the world. President Bush has, in fact, diminished our standing and in
fact is a big part of the presidential campaign.
They accuse the administration of unilateralism and a disregard for
our allies. They say that that has hurt our leadership and our
credibility in the international community. And in the presidential
campaign, they promise, Senators Clinton and Obama, they promise to
restore our prestige.
And yet the Democratic leadership raced to sabotage our relationship
with our best and closest ally in South America with what could only be
described as reckless abandon. Following a mere 1 hour of debate, they
chose to treat our close democratic friend in our very own hemisphere,
a slap in the face is the way this was described by the Vice President
of Colombia, or as the Las Vegas Review Journal put it, a

[[Page 6060]]

stab in the back. That's how the action that was taken here last week
has been characterized.
Colombian democracy has grown steadily stronger under the courageous
leadership of President Uribe with whom I spoke today. His popularity
has soared above 70 percent and stayed there because he took his
country from the brink of a failed State and put it back on the path of
peaceful and prosperous stability. He's strengthened democratic
institutions, not least of which is a Justice Department that has
aggressively tackled the culture of impunity for murderers.
Under Uribe's presidency, crime has plummeted, largely because he has
aggressively pursued the eco-terrorist guerillas and the equally
murderous paramilitaries. The former have been pushed from their
stronghold, and the latter have been systematically dismantled and
their leadership imprisoned. The rank-and-file are beginning the long
and difficult process of rehabilitation and reintegration into society
with the help of government-funded social programs. The same has been
offered to rank-and-file guerrillas who wish to surrender their arms.
Now, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to witness the real-world
implications of these demobilization efforts. When I was in Colombia
last August, several of my colleagues and I had the chance to sit down
with former paramilitary members. These are young men and women, and I
do mean young, teenagers in most cases, who had heart-wrenching tales
to share with us. We heard from one young man who described his
parents' murder right before his eyes. In his grief and anger, he
turned to vigilantism. Like so many Colombians spanning multiple
generations, he experienced the horror of violence, and he turned to
violence himself.
The leaders of these paramilitary groups, like their guerrilla
counterparts, committed heinous acts of violence and are now paying
their debt to society. As remarkable an achievement as that is, the
much harder part is bringing these young men and women, like those who
I met, back into society.
I met them at a vocational training facility where they are learning
the skills that will allow them to provide for themselves and become
responsible members of society. They're learning to leave their violent
past behind them and contribute to a peaceful and prosperous Colombia.
These efforts undertaken by President Uribe's government are already
serving as a model for other post-conflict countries that have faced
similar challenges. The process, Madam Speaker, of demobilization and
reconciliation is not easy. There is still a great deal of work that
needs to be done. While most paramilitary groups have been dismantled,
there are still vigilantes in the jungle. There are still violent
leaders at large who must go to jail. The guerrilla groups have yet to
lay down their arms. And even as demobilization goes forward, the work
of reintegration will take years.
But, Madam Speaker, I saw firsthand, as I know my colleagues who are
going to be participating in this Special Order have. Tough work is
being done, and it is being done with great success.
At the same time this transformation is taking place, Colombia has
also faced a formidable foe of democracy on its border. We all know
very well. Hugo Chavez has long been working to dismantle democratic
institutions and free markets in his country of Venezuela and to export
his authoritarian designs throughout the region. He suppressed dissent,
trashed the Venezuelan constitution and squashed free enterprise. He's
interfered with the elections of his neighbors and drawn Ecuador and
Bolivia into his orbit.
He keeps company with Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad. His anti-democratic institutions for this hemisphere are
no secret, and he is as openly hostile to the region's bulwarks of
democracy as he is to the United States of America. Just weeks ago, he
sent troops to his border with Colombia in a naked act of hostility.
Flush with oil money, we all know that Hugo Chavez poses a grave threat
to Latin America.
President Uribe, facing enormous challenges within his own borders
and on the front lines of this ideological battle, is standing up.
Colombia, under his leadership, is actively countering the influence of
Hugo Chavez by acting as a model of the great gains to be made in a
free and transparent democracy.
With seemingly little thought for the cause of democracy or U.S.
interests, the Democratic leadership has disregarded both with last
week's vote. Only time will tell the extent of the damage to our
relationship with Colombia or our struggle to rein in the influence of
Hugo Chavez. The damage to our credibility may be even more durable,
unfortunately.
We have now sent a clear message to our partners: our word at the
negotiating table is cheap, and if we don't like how things are going,
we will just change the rules in the middle of the process. The
implications extend well beyond trade. The United States is engaged in
a great many negotiations on a great many issues: Israeli-Palestinian
peace talks, nuclear nonproliferation, regional diplomatic efforts for
Iraq. If our word to our close friends can't be trusted, how will we
effectively engage around the globe?
Our credibility, Madam Speaker, and our leadership in the
international community can hardly endure when they are so casually
disregarded by this body.
This was the main thrust of the criticism from editorial boards
across the country. But to economic and foreign policy damage, I would
add institutional damage. Ironically, the vote to kill the free trade
agreement succeeded because the Democratic leadership effectively
argued to its membership that it was in the House's interest, this
institution's interest to do so. They appealed to that institutional
and party pride. I have already discussed the issue of party pride,
Madam Speaker, as the L.A. Times editorialized, it's no secret on this
issue, Democratic party interests run counter to our Nation's interest.
But the claims of institutional prerogative are utterly specious.
During the rule debate last week, I went through the administration's
requirements under Trade Promotion Authority chapter and verse, and I
won't belabor them here. Suffice it to say, the Trade Promotion
Authority was not ambiguous in its demands. I was involved in the
negotiations in putting trade promotion authorities together. It is
very, very rigorous because I believe in the first branch of
government, I'm a believer in this institution, and I believe that we
have very important rights.
The requirements for any administration under Trade Promotion
Authority are laid out very clearly, and as my colleagues who are here
on the floor know, this administration followed those directives to the
letter in both spirit and in letter. They followed it to a T. These
requirements were designed to ensure that Congress is consulted at
every single step of the way. This goal was demonstrably and
unequivocally achieved.
But under Trade Promotion Authority, there are two sets of processes:
There is the negotiating process, which closely involves Congress but
is led by the administration, and there is the congressional process.
Both processes are unambiguously defined by very strict timetables.
The first timeline was followed. The second timeline was abrogated.
One side followed the rules in good faith; the other side cheated. The
Charlottesville Daily Progress outlined the implications of these
actions perfectly, and they said, ``If rules of procedure mean nothing,
then the legislative process can be warped, and moreover, it can be
warped at the discretion of a single powerful person. This is not the
way democracy should work. The effort to change the rules after the
process was under way dishonors Congress.''
Those are not my words. Those are the words of the editorial written
in the Charlottesville Daily Progress.
Madam Speaker, so much for institutional pride. The message the
Democratic leadership has sent is that the

[[Page 6061]]

ends justify the means. And what lofty goal did they sacrifice
institutional integrity for? Killing an agreement, killing an agreement
that extends preferential treatment to American workers and strengthens
a key democratic ally in our own hemisphere.
No wonder the condemnation came so swiftly, and my staff has done a
great deal of research. We have yet to find an editorial that is in
support of the actions of the Speaker. As I said, her hometown paper,
the New York Times, the Washington Post, on and on and on, we're going
to discuss some of those further in just a minute. It is not too late
though, Madam Speaker, it is not too late to correct this.
We were supposed to have a 3-month process of debate and
deliberations. We can still have it. We were supposed to have a vote at
the end of that process. The Democratic leadership can still commit to
do it.
I mentioned the fact that I spoke with President Uribe a few hours
ago. He's patient and he's optimistic. Frankly, he has no choice other
than to be patient and optimistic. Madam Speaker, I call on Speaker
Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to make a commitment to hold a vote on
this very important Colombia Free Trade Agreement prior to the August
recess. I call on them to quit demagoging this issue and let their
rank-and-file Members vote their conscience.
I will say that I completely disagree with the statement made by
Speaker Pelosi here last week. She said that one of the reasons she
didn't want this vote is that she was afraid it would go down to
defeat. As I look at my colleagues who have joined me here, we've been
working in a bipartisan way, and I'm not going to state the names of
any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; but the fact of
the matter is, in going through this 3-month process, I have every
confidence that a bipartisan majority of this institution would
recognize that helping American workers, strengthening a democratic
ally, doing everything that we can for the word of this institution,
would be the right thing to do. I know that because, frankly, more than
a few Democrats have told me that they want to have a choice to vote
for and support this measure.
Passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is clearly in our
economic and our foreign policy interest. Blocking it is clearly not.
And changing the rules in the middle of the game because you're afraid
of a fair fight is not defensible. It's time for us to exert true
leadership as an institution and make sure that we pass this agreement.
So those are my prepared remarks, Madam Speaker. And I'm so proud
that I have been joined by a number of my colleagues, all of whom have
been great champions in this effort and have worked on the notion of
expanding opportunities for U.S. goods and services to be sold all
around the world.
And one of the great leaders who has been pursuing this, specifically
in this hemisphere for many, many years and was a great champion of the
Central American Free Trade Agreement and a wide range of other free
trade initiatives, comes from a State, by the way, that is the
headquarters for Caterpillar, and we know that by not passing this free
trade agreement, we are preventing good, hardworking Caterpillar
employees from having an opportunity to duty-free sell their very
important equipment into Colombia. And I'm very happy at this time to
yield to my very, very good friend who I'm saddened to say will not be
joining us in the 111th Congress because he's chosen to retire to spend
time with his wonderful, wonderful and very young family, but I'm happy
to yield to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I
also want to thank Mr. Dreier for your leadership tonight as well as
your continuous leadership on trade issues because, as you pointed out,
the actions of this House last week have done a lot of damage to the
reputation not only to the House of Representatives but the reputation
of the United States in Latin America.
President Uribe is a popular elected official. This Congress has an
18 percent approval rating. President Uribe enjoys an 80 percent
approval rating because he's made such progress in addressing five
decades of violence and civil problems in the democratic Republic of
Colombia. And as a result, today, 73 percent of Colombians say they
feel more secure because of President Uribe's leadership, but also they
feel that he has brought security while respecting human rights.

{time} 2100

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to pose a
question, if I might, to my friend.
As we hear this 73 percent support level in Colombia, we know that
the opposition here in the United States to this is being led by the
AFL-CIO and organized labor. Now, I'm sure that my friend has seen in
Colombia, as I have, that the private sector unions in Colombia are
strongly supportive of this agreement. Is that the case or not?
I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I thank you for your generous time.
This past week, as we all know, there was a delegation of labor
leaders from Colombia, including both the private sector and as well as
public sector unions, and they made the point that the majority of
industrial unions, private sector unions support the U.S.-Colombia
Trade Agreement, but the opposition is coming from the government
employees, who are not even impacted.
Mr. DREIER. In no way impacted by this agreement at all.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. That's correct. And one point you made
earlier that I would like to--and I don't want to be greedy with the
time, you've been very generous.
Mr. DREIER. I would just like to include our colleagues here with the
discussion.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. But I would just like to comment on one point
that you made.
You said Illinois is headquarters to Caterpillar, and people think of
the yellow construction equipment. There is more to it than you think,
and that's why this trade agreement is so important. I have 8,000
Caterpillar employees residing in the 11th Congressional District of
Illinois. They're union members, every one of them. And Caterpillar, of
course, would benefit from this, and that means their workers would as
well. Half of their production in Illinois is dependent on exports.
Mr. DREIER. So maybe there would be more than 11,000 workers if this
agreement were to go through.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. There would be. And their growth has come as
a result of export.
But the point that really needs to be made is there is tremendous
economic growth going on in the Andean region, which Colombia is
leading, and a lot of that is in the energy and the mining and raw
material sector, which means they're going to use construction
equipment. And right now, the construction equipment that union workers
make in the district I represent, places like Joliet, Aurora, Pontiac
and Decatur, it faces a 15 percent tariff when exported to Colombia.
Now, some would say, what does that mean? That's a 15 percent tax on
the price of that bulldozer. So that makes U.S. products less
competitive, say, than competing with Japan.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would say taxes are
something very important today to discuss. I mean, we talk about that
tax on April 15.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. And of course these tariffs would be
eliminated immediately upon implementation of the U.S-Colombia Trade
Agreement. I yield back the time, but it is so important to point out,
Illinois is a big winner, manufacturers as well as farmers.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I hope that you can stay for a few
minutes because I know we would like to get in some other questions.
When my friend began discussing the fact that a delegation came from
Colombia of union leaders to the United States, I thought that you were
going to mention the fact that a delegation of Members of the United
States Congress went last week to Colombia. One

[[Page 6062]]

of those who went was the distinguished secretary of the Republican
Conference, our very, very good friend, Judge John Carter, a gentleman
from Texas. And I would love to hear his thoughts, having just been in
Colombia a week ago, on his trip. And I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. CARTER. I thank you for yielding to me. My friend from California
is gracious to do so.
Let me start off by telling you what happened when I decided I was
going to Colombia. My daughter, who lives here in Washington, called me
up and said, Daddy, I told you not to go down to Colombia. Didn't you
see ``Clear and Present Danger?'' Didn't you see that movie? Have you
lost your mind?
I want to point that out because I think that's a lot of what the
American people think about Colombia when it comes to their mind, they
think of that movie and that book. And I am pleased to say that I was
very pleasantly surprised to find a very peaceable place where an awful
lot of people have done an awful lot of hard work to get violent people
out of their country and to get those people who joined defense bands
and guerrilla bands to lay down their weapons.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, did you
have a chance to visit Medellin?
Mr. CARTER. I was in Medellin.
Mr. DREIER. Medellin was the murder capital of the world, clearly the
most dangerous spot in the world. And now Medellin has a murder rate
that is too high. We have a murder rate that is too high in the
District of Columbia. We have a murder rate that is too high in the
United States of America. But the transformation of Medellin under the
great Mayor Sergio Fajardo, with whom I'm sure you met, has been so
dramatic. His leadership and the leadership of President Uribe has just
transformed that city. Is that what my friend found?
Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. Transformed it completely. It's a joy to be
in Medellin, it really is. And, you know, the Medellin cartels are
gone, and they are prospering.
And, you know, they talked to us and they said, look, we are trying
to stand up for democracy and free enterprise, we believe in this
system. And this trade agreement is the linchpin that holds it all
together for this country that has worked so desperately to solve
problems that, quite frankly, not very many countries in the world
would have been able to solve. Getting 40,000 people to lay down their
arms is a major project.
Mr. DREIER. And Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend if he,
in fact, had the chance to meet with any of these young people who had
been former paramilitaries, and I wonder if he has any anecdotes that
he can share with us.
Mr. CARTER. We did. We divided into groups and met with an assortment
of both male and female. And you're right--
Mr. DREIER. Share one of those stories.
Mr. CARTER. You know, the first question, they all started talking
about how they joined the paramilitary unit. They told about families
being slaughtered, being separated from their families, having to run
and escape the guerrillas that came out of the woods. And they ran to
escape, and then came back to find their families slaughtered, and so
they joined a paramilitary group. And a question was asked, rather
naively, I think, by us, you mean, you were carrying weapons?
Absolutely. Every one of them, male and female, were carrying weapons.
And now they are working in programs that are changing the culture of
these people that joined the violent behavior. They have laid down
their weapons. We asked them why. They said the comandantes said we
have talked to the president, we lay down our weapons, and they did.
They are out studying. They're proud to say they're getting high
school educations. They're proud to say they're going to trade schools.
A few were proud to say they had received admission to university.
These were jungle fighters just a short while ago, and now they are
coming into society and working very hard because they see a future for
Colombia. And this future rests upon a world of free enterprise and
trade, and this agreement starts the process that gives them many
opportunities for free trade around the world.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. My friend is absolutely right. And I will
tell you, these meetings are always, for me, I've participated in
several of them, very emotional. As I said in my opening remarks, I
remember very vividly seeing this young, I mean, a kid, he said he was
18 years old when he watched the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, the FARC, which we all know that acronym, they came in and
they murdered his mother and father right in front of him. And of
course he was, like any of us would be, so angry and so bitter that he
joined with the paramilitary and began being, as you said so well, Mr.
Carter, a guerrilla fighter. And he was able to become productive
because of the trade schools that have been put into place.
And the patriotism that these young Colombians have for their country
and their desire for a peaceful nation is so great. They were forced
into this because these narcoterrorists in the FARC were resorting to
murdering their parents. And so many others have been tragically
murdered there. To see this take place and to hear those individual
stories, they are very, very emotional. In fact, as you listen to these
people, I mean, I'm getting emotional thinking about it because of the
fact that these young people who have been forced into this are now
becoming productive members of society. And the notion of our not doing
what we can to bring about peace and stability in this hemisphere is, I
think, very, very distressing.
I am happy to see that we're joined by the very distinguished ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Ways and Means Committee, my
California colleague, Mr. Herger. And I would be happy to yield for
some comments to my very good friend.
Mr. HERGER. Well, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for
setting this up this evening.
This is so incredibly important. It's important to our Nation, it's
important to our workers at a time when we're seeing our economy
dipping, when we need to be able to produce jobs. And we look at how we
produce jobs. Since last year, some 27 percent of our increase in gross
domestic product came from exports. It's projected that just this year
of our increase in gross domestic product, some 40 percent will be
again from exports.
And I wish it weren't true, but it seems like perhaps the best kept
secret in our Nation today is that the United States is the largest
trading nation in the world. We're the largest exporting nation in the
world.
I represent, as my good friend knows, a very rich agricultural
district north of Sacramento in northern California.
Mr. DREIER. Beautiful area.
Mr. HERGER. One of the richest agriculture areas in the world, second
largest rice producing district. Some 60 percent of all the dried plums
in the world, prunes, are grown there, walnuts, almonds, these
specialty crops. And America cannot consume all that we produce. As a
matter of fact, one-third of all that we produce we need to be able to
export. And to be able to see, again, talking about Colombia, what this
does for American workers, we just heard about Caterpillar from our
good friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller) just earlier in his district,
the thousands that it affects. And so it affects in the district I
represent.
Right now, because of our duty free status for the Andean nations,
which we've gone in to try to help Colombia, Colombia was not always
this great nation where some 42,000 former paramilitary, as we were
talking about earlier, have gone from fighting the country to now being
part of the country and supporting them. As we know, it wasn't always
that way. And so some years ago we gave these Andean nations, including
Colombia, Peru, Panama, and others, the ability to be able to export
into the United States duty free, duty free, but yet we still have
export duties, some as high as 60, 70 percent, going into their
country.
And what this free trade agreement would do is it would be able to
give us

[[Page 6063]]

the same access to their markets that they currently have to ours, to
our rice, to our walnuts, to our wheat, to our corn, to other
commodities that are so very, very important.
So it is important what we're doing. It's important not only for, we
were discussing the change in Colombia itself, which is our strongest
ally in South America; we cannot turn our back on them, we cannot slap
them in the face.
And Madam Speaker, I would like to place into the Record some of
these editorials that you were speaking about, Mr. Dreier, for the
Record.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2008]

Time for the Colombian Trade Pact

American workers are understandably anxious. Their incomes
went nowhere through six years of economic growth. Many are
losing their jobs as the economy slips into recession. Yet
concern about workers' plight should not lead Congressional
Democrats to reject the trade agreement with Colombia. This
deal would benefit the American economy and further the
nation's broader interests in Latin America.
It is time for Congress to ratify it.
The trade pact would produce clear benefits for American
businesses and their workers. Most Colombian exports are
exempt from United States' tariffs. American exports,
however, face high Colombian tariffs and would benefit as the
so-called trade promotion agreement brought them down to
zero.
The deal also would strengthen the institutional bonds
tying the United States to Colombia, one of America's few
allies in an important region that has become increasingly
hostile to the United States' interests. Perhaps most
important, the deal would provide a tool for Colombia's
development, drawing investment and helping the nation
extricate itself from the mire of poverty that provides
sustenance to drug trafficking and a bloody insurgency.
Violence in Colombia is way too high. We remain very
concerned over the killing of trade unionists by right-wing
paramilitary groups. Last year, we advised Congress not to
ratify the trade agreement until Colombia demonstrated
progress in investigating the murders and prosecuting and
convicting their perpetrators.
Though by no means ideal, the situation today has improved.
Thirty-nine trade unionists were killed last year, down from
197 in 2001, the year before the government of Alvaro Uribe
came to office. Prosecutors obtained 36 convictions for the
murder of trade unionists--up from 11 in 2006 and only one in
2001. The budget of the prosecutor general's office has
increased every year. Last year, it created a special unit to
prosecute labor murders that has obtained 13 sentences.
Pressure from the United States Congress has contributed to
this progress, nudging the Colombian government with its
offer that gains on the human rights front would lead to
ratification of the trade agreement. Washington must sustain
the pressure to ensure the energetic prosecution of crimes by
paramilitary thugs and further reduce violence against union
members. It has a powerful tool to do so: about $600 million
a year in mostly military aid for Colombia to combat drug
trafficking. The money must be approved by Congress every
year.
Rejecting or putting on ice the trade agreement would
reduce the United States' credibility and leverage in
Colombia and beyond. In a letter last year to Congressional
Democrats, a group of Democratic heavyweights from the
Clinton administration and previous Congresses wrote:
``Walking away from the Colombia trade agreement or
postponing it until conditions are perfect would send an
unambiguous signal to our friends and opponents alike that
the United States is an unreliable partner without a vision
for cooperation in our hemisphere.'' It would serve human
rights in Colombia no good.
Unfortunately, the agreement has become entangled in
political jockeying between the White House and Democrats.
The Democrats are right to demand assistance for American
workers, and the Bush administration should work with
Congress to expand the safety net for workers displaced by
globalization. But this should not stop the Colombian trade
pact from coming to fruition.
____

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2008]

Drop Dead, Colombia

The year 2008 may enter history as the time when the
Democratic Party lost its way on trade. Already, the party's
presidential candidates have engaged in an unseemly contest
to adopt the most protectionist posture, suggesting that, if
elected, they might pull out of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her
intention to change the procedural rules governing the
proposed trade promotion agreement with Colombia. President
Bush submitted the pact to Congress on Tuesday for a vote
within the next 90 legislative days, as required by the
``fast-track'' authority under which the U.S. negotiated the
deal with Colombia. Ms. Pelosi says she'll ask the House to
undo that rule.
The likely result is no vote on the agreement this year.
Ms. Pelosi denies that her intent is to kill the bill,
insisting yesterday that Congress simply needs more time to
consider it ``in light of the economic uncertainty in our
country.'' She claimed that she feared that, ``if brought to
the floor immediately, [the pact] would lose. And what
message would that send?'' But Ms. Pelosi's decision-making
process also included a fair component of pure Washington
pique: She accused Mr. Bush of ``usurp[ing] the discretion of
the speaker of the House'' to schedule legislation.
That political turf-staking, and the Democrats'
decreasingly credible claims of a death-squad campaign
against Colombia's trade unionists, constitutes all that's
left of the case against the agreement. Economically, it
should be a no-brainer--especially at a time of rising U.S.
joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United
States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would
make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free
access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S.
jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American
interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government
that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite
harassment from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
To be sure, President Bush provoked Ms. Pelosi. But he
forced the issue only after months of inconclusive dickering
convinced him that Democrats were determined to avoid a vote
that would force them to accept accountability for opposing
an agreement that is manifestly in America's interest. It
turns out his suspicions were correct.
``I take this action with deep respect to the people of
Colombia and will be sure that any message they receive is
one of respect for their country, and the importance of the
friendship between our two countries,'' Ms. Pelosi protested
yesterday. Perhaps Colombia's government and people will
understand. We don't.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my
friend for pointing to these editorials because, as I said a few
minutes ago, we've done a great deal of research. We've been trying
desperately to find an editorial anywhere in this country that has been
written in support of the egregious action taken by the Democratic
leadership in this institution, undermining the ability to open up this
very important new market for U.S. workers, agricultural products and
manufactured goods. We hear from California and Illinois and other
States as well. And I actually have, I think, about 15 of these
editorials here with some incredible quotes that are pretty damning.
And again, these come from publications that are hardly considered
Republican mouth pieces.
You know, we had this very harsh criticism level at the President of
the United States, and he somehow was trying to ram this thing through
and rush it. We know that this agreement, the negotiation began 4 years
ago, it was completed 2 years ago, and a year and a half ago it was
signed. There have been constant attempts to bring this up; 27 meetings
held with the Democratic leadership by this administration, and yet, as
has been pointed out in these editorials, this terrible action was
taken.
I'm very pleased that one of the great free traders in this
institution who represents the very important port town of Houston,
Texas, has joined us, another hardworking member of the Ways and
Means--I guess we've got three members of the Ways and Means Committee
here, so I'm particularly pleased to have members of that very, very
important committee with us, including my good friend, as I said, from
Houston, Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Dreier. And thank you for your
leadership. I'm glad to join all the Members here tonight on this
important issue.
The reason this country is so dismayed by the action last week is
that it was such a huge loss for American jobs, for security in our
hemisphere, and a big loss for America's prestige around the world.

{time} 2115

Colombia's a remarkable trading partner, as you have noted. They are
a remarkable study and model in progress, in democracy, and human
rights, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps by rule of law and
freedom of speech and freedom of trade, all the American traits that
you have to admire. They're in our backyard. They're in our hemisphere.
A remarkable trading partner.

[[Page 6064]]

I think last week many in America wondered just what happened to this
great country. Who could imagine that America, with the world's largest
economy, would cower from Colombia behind walls of protectionism? Who
could imagine the world's strongest democracy would be afraid to even
debate, even consider this agreement? And who could imagine, by
changing the rules after we had already shaken hands and signed an
agreement, that we would send a signal to the rest of the world that we
are no longer not even a reliable trade leader in this world but we are
not even reliable negotiators, that our word, our bond, our agreements
mean nothing?
And the loss in jobs, as you know, America is wide open, Mr. Dreier.
As you know, we can buy anything from almost any country anywhere we
want in our communities.
Mr. DREIER. And that's a good thing.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. But when we try to sell our goods and services
around the world, we find too much of it blocked. As we have said
before, it's not enough anymore to just buy American. We have to sell
American. We have to sell our goods and services throughout the world.
But when we do, we find so much of the world is closed off, locked away
from us.
Colombia, a great partner, has been selling their goods and services
into America since 1991, but we face real barriers when we try to do
the same, and this trade agreement creates that two-way trade.
For Texas I know it's critical. We're the largest seller of goods to
Colombia. We sell about a little over a billion dollars a year in
chemicals, construction, equipment and machinery and computers. And
under this agreement we would sell another billion dollars of not only
that but grapefruit and beef and financial services. A number of
services our small businesses could sell into Colombia, our neighbor in
the backyard and in our hemisphere. So we lost jobs here in America.
Colombia lost jobs because they lost a guaranteed market because by
not acting, by changing the rules, they are now coming at a
disadvantage to their neighbors, in Peru and Central American
countries. So they actually lost ground from a jobs perspective.
And, finally, to turn our back on what a tremendous ally, as you have
noted over and over, who has made such great progress, who we deserve
to engage more and be a stronger partner with, not to turn our back on,
it's a huge loss.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution,
Madam Speaker.
And one of the issues that has come to the forefront, and I would be
happy to yield to any of my colleagues who would like to comment on
this, has been this notion that the Colombian Government is somehow
murdering union leaders. We have continued to hear this. And it is
true. In the past it's been absolutely outrageous to see the treatment.
But in the last several years under the leadership of President
Uribe, very important steps have been taken to bring to justice any of
those who have been responsible for the heinous act of murdering these
union leaders. And the government has done something which is totally
unprecedented. The government does not want to see union leaders
killed; so what do they do? There are 1,500 union leaders who enjoy
full security protection paid for by the Government of Colombia. And
yet we continually hear arguments put forward by our friends at the
AFL-CIO that ``the Colombian Government is murdering our brothers.'' I
mean I've heard that chant over and over and over again. Because, of
course, as these very thoughtful arguments that my colleagues have put
forward are there, the only response that they can have is the
Colombian Government is murdering, is murdering, our brothers.
I would be happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Very briefly, Judge Carter was with me and others
here 2 weeks ago as we met with the general prosecutor, an independent
prosecutor, for the country of Colombia.
Mr. DREIER. I believe he's called the Fiscalia.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes. And he told us straight out, because we
asked him, he said there is no thread, no direct or indirect thread at
all, between the Colombian Government and any murders of anyone, much
less union leaders. And he said what you've said, that this government
has not only sat down to prosecute those who would commit violent
crimes against union leaders but provides protection. In fact, it is
safer to be a union leader in Colombia than just the general population
might be. That is such an effort they have made. That government is
providing a lower level of violence, a safer country for all citizens.
So the argument that they are targeting or that they are allowing it
or just looking the other way is exactly wrong, and the unions
themselves told us that.
Mr. DREIER. That's right because, as I pointed out earlier, the
private sector unions, and Mr. Weller and I had this exchange, are very
supportive of this. And I suspect that on your trip, you had a chance
to meet with a number of those union leaders.
Let me just say that one Member who is here that we haven't heard
from is the distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to yield to my friend from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding,
and I thank him especially for gathering us together here for this
Special Order.
Being mindful of the clock, there are a few points I would like to
make. And one of them is to address our trade deficit. We have had a
trade deficit over the last several years that has grown an average of
about 20 percent a year. Now, it's flattened out in this last year
because the weaker dollar has shifted so that we have more exports in
proportion. However, I believe the dollar needs to be shored up. And
why would a nation that has a trade deficit refuse to allow a trade
agreement that would open up a country to allow our goods to go in?
I'm astonished continually at the continuing shift on the part of the
Democrats. And I looked through the trade agreements that we have dealt
with here since I have been in this Congress, and I'm thinking of trade
agreements like Singapore and Chile and Australia and Morocco, the
Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA. All of those gave us
opportunities that were advantageous to us. And the logic in this is
just as clear and simple: If you market something or if you're doing
business with people, where you buy it from is where the jobs are.
That's where the production is. We have production in the United
States. We need to market more goods overseas. If we shore up the
dollar, and I think we should, we're going to need to be more
aggressive marketing our goods overseas. Colombia's sitting there
waiting to open that up.
I have to say a couple kind words about our pork producers. They sold
$8.5 million worth of pork into Colombia last year, not a lot. They're
losing money on every head today. They need to open up this market. It
would be in multiples if we would simply allow that tariff that's in
Colombia to disappear, which would happen immediately if we could sign
into this free trade agreement. That's some of the components.
But I am also more concerned about our relationships in the Western
hemisphere. And as we watch Hugo Chavez teaming up and picking up the
legacy of Fidel Castro and watching the unrest that's being promoted or
watching tanks roll up to the border, these things are taking place in
our hemisphere. And this Monroe Doctrine, I think, calls upon us to be
good diplomats, good stewards of the money, and good promoters of
trade, taking care of American jobs and protecting our opportunity to
compete in the rest of the world. All of this comes together in this
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
What happened here in this Congress was a shameful act. And Americans
have to be viewed as having character,

[[Page 6065]]

the kind of character that holds up when a business deal is a deal. We
did more than shake hands on this. This Congress passed it. The
President signed it. This agreement was negotiated under terms that
said this trade agreement will come to the floor of this House and it
will be brought forward for a vote, up or down, in 90 days. That's the
deal. That's the deal it was negotiated under. That's the deal that it
should have been brought to the floor of this House under.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time so I could
propound a question to my friend, and I don't mean to interrupt his
very thoughtful statement.
But as I listened to the arguments that have been made by Speaker
Pelosi and others against this, they said we have an economy that is
weakening. We all know that is the case. Our economy is facing very
serious challenges. Here again, this is Tax Day, April 15, and it is
hard for people to make ends meet. It has become more difficult. So the
argument has been made. I hear Speaker Pelosi regularly say we need to
focus on American workers and their concerns rather than some kind of
agreement, and so we should put off this agreement until our economy is
stronger.
And I just don't quite understand that. And I wonder if my friend
might enlighten me on exactly what the point of that statement is.
And I further yield.
Mr. KING of Iowa. If we took that position with every country on the
globe, you could virtually guarantee our economy would collapse, not
get stronger. We need to make every move that we can make to improve
this economy. I'm really not as concerned as the pundits are, but it's
prudent for us to open trade. Free trade, fair trade smart trade is a
better code word for this, and it means jobs in America. The U.S.
market is open to Colombia. They're saying, let's open our market to
you. I'm happy to send Caterpillars down there. We buy them in my
business. And I'm happy to send the pork down there that we produce and
everything that we can compete with. This global market that we're
involved in demands that we export, and the Western hemisphere demands
that we lead. And that means we need to promote strong, strong
relationships in the Western hemisphere. And as we watch the bullying
tactics of Hugo Chavez, I think that cries out for us to shake hands
with President Uribe and complete this Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. DREIER. So basically this would best be described as a win-win
all the way around. It's a winner for the cause of democracy and
freedom and the rule of law in South America, which we all know is very
important. It's a winner when it comes to stopping those drug
traffickers who are selling drugs, poisoning our children and
grandchildren. And then we look at the opportunity created for the
United States of America, our workers. They're greatly benefited by
this.
And that's why I continue to try to figure out why it is that anyone
would oppose this. I mean we use the term ``no brainer'' to describe
this. It really is a no brainer. We used that in the debate last week.
I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. McCrery, and a couple of others have said this is a no
brainer.
And these editorials that have been written, I think we probably
should share some of the words of these publications that often
criticize Republican policies who have come forward with this. I know a
number of things have been put forward. But one thing just today, the
Wall Street Journal had an editorial that was in strong support of a
letter, an open letter, that came from former senior administration
officials from the Clinton administration and Democratic Members of
Congress, and it was signed by 35 of them, former colleagues of ours
who are Democrats. And it includes people, by the way, just some of the
signatories of this letter, the former Commerce Secretary William
Daley, who is from Mr. Weller's State that we talked about; Stuart
Eizenstat, a very prominent brilliant economic mind; General Barry
McCaffrey; our former colleague who was a Republican Senator but went
on to be the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, Bill
Cohen, signed this. So a lot of people have signed this letter.
It says: ``We believe this agreement is in both our vital national
security and economic interests. We feel that the treaty should be
considered as soon as possible.'' I remind people it's not actually a
treaty; it's an agreement. ``We feel that the treaty should be
considered as soon as possible and that any obstacles be quickly and
amicably resolved.''
The letter cites ``an overwhelming national security imperative'' and
that ``President Uribe has been a strong and faithful ally. To turn our
back on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would be a severe blow to
that relationship and would send a very negative message to our friends
in a volatile region?
The letter praises Colombia for its ``dramatic improvement in
security'' and for being ``a model of open market democracy that
supports fundamental U.S. national interests'' and points out that
these are ideals that many in the region ``openly scorn,'' of course,
referring, as my friend just said, to Hugo Chavez. The letter goes on
to praise Uribe personally for his ``great personal courage'' in
aggressively going on the offensive in fighting narcoterrorists and
dramatically increasing drug interdiction and eradication of criminals
to the United States, or extradition of criminals. Eradication of
criminals too, we want to do that. It also praises his substantial
progress in the issue of violence against trade unionists, pointing out
that Uribe has provided special security protection to some 9,400
individuals. This number says including 1,900 trade unionists. I said
1,500, and this letter that these officials of the Clinton
administration and former Democratic Members of the United States
Congress said 1,900 trade unionists have been able to receive this kind
of protection.
And that's why I implore my colleagues in the Democratic leadership
to bring this up for a vote.
Mark my words, and I would ask any of my colleagues who are here if
they disagree with my assessment, if after we go through these
arguments, which we have begun talking about tonight and we talked a
little bit about last week, is there any doubt that we would have
strong bipartisan support with many Democrats joining with us in
support of this?

{time} 2130

I would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues who have any
thoughts or comments on that at all. I suspect you might agree with me,
but if you have any thoughts on it, I would be happy to.
Mr. Brady, you look like you would like to cast your vote.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Absolutely. There have been a number of Democrat
colleagues who have traveled to Colombia to see that remarkable
progress firsthand, who have assessed it themselves rather than playing
the politics of it, and who have been both public and private in their
support for this agreement. I think all they would like is an up-or-
down vote, a fair chance to debate this issue and bring it to the
floor. I am confident with it would pass. And I am confident we would
send a completely different signal to our allies like Colombia and the
rest of the world.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. And it is
very interesting. We have heard the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, talk about
the need for trade adjustment assistance, a second stimulus package.
And Madam Speaker, I would argue that the Colombia free-trade
agreement, which will create an opportunity for more U.S. workers to
sell their goods and agricultural products into Colombia is, in fact,
trade adjustment assistance itself. And I would argue that this
agreement, job creating, is in fact an economic stimulus package in and
of itself. So if the commitment is to trade adjustment assistance and
economic stimulus so that we can create more jobs in the United States
of America, the answer is, pass the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement.

[[Page 6066]]

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I agree wholeheartedly that I think an up-or-down vote
and we will have a Colombia free-trade agreement. I think that our
Democratic colleagues will be reasonable and understand this. And I
think we have the votes to get it done.
But I think Speaker Pelosi needs to release this and let us have a
vote. That is the key thing. And you notice that letter you just read
kept talking about national security. What we really have here, if you
look at it closely, is a contest of two socialist--we used to call them
Communist--a regime in Hugo Chavez, and we have Uribe who is trying to
create a free democracy, and a free enterprise system. These are two,
side-by-side competing systems that will influence that entire
continent.
And that is why this is in our national security interest. It is not
just a trade agreement which is going to benefit American workers. It
is a security agreement that points to the direction that we stand up
for what we believe in, democracy and free enterprise.
Mr. DREIER. My friend makes a very good and important point here. And
I was talking to my colleague, Dan Lungren, who served here, I was
pleased to serve with him during the 1980s when we were in the midst,
and I know my friend from California came in 1986 to this institution.
We have spent time, energy, resources and weapons in dealing with the
expansion of Communism in Central America as we were providing
resources to the Democratic resistance in Nicaragua known as the
Contras. And we regularly hear criticism from Democrats that what we
should be doing in Iraq is we shouldn't be using weapons, we should, in
fact, be engaging and using trade and other things.
And what is it we have here? We have Democrats, the Democratic
leadership, unfortunately, saying that as we seek to build a stronger
relationship with a country that is standing up to narcoterrorists,
that is standing up to the expansion of Hugo Chavez on their borders
trying to extend into the country, and they are saying ``no'' to this.
They are saying ``no'' to this because somehow they believe it is going
to hurt U.S. workers.
To me it is absolutely outrageous that this has taken place. And
Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my colleagues for the
time that they have spent here this evening. And I hope very much that
Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership will, in fact, schedule a
vote on the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement before the August
recess. Let's begin the process of debate and voting right now.
I thank again my colleagues, Madam Speaker, and with that I yield
back the balance of my time.

____________________

IRAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is
recognized for 60 minutes.

General Leave

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. The subject of my Special Order is Iran.
Madam Speaker, at the time the war in Iraq began in March of 2003,
who would have thought that we were being led into perhaps the worst
foreign policy disaster in America's history? Many of us voted against
the war authorization in the first place. But many more Members wish
they had voted against it. We now know that this country was led into
this war with faulty intelligence and a deafening war drum from the
administration.
The question that we raise tonight is this: Could the Bush
administration possibly be planning for a war with Iran? There isn't
any empirical evidence to prove that the Bush administration is
planning for war. But there are experts that are indeed worried that
the same playbook that was used to bring this country into the Iraq war
is now being used to toward Iran. The administration is pushing suspect
intelligence. And it has severely increased and sharpened since their
rhetoric first began toward Iran.
We come to the floor tonight to resist efforts by this administration
to paint war with Iran as a necessary next step in our so-called war on
terror. A vast majority of foreign policy and military experts agree
that war with Iran would be a colossal error.
Allow me to spend a few minutes to explain why I feel that U.S.
strikes against Iran are a real possibility. Let us look at some of the
signs that we may be headed for war. The increased rhetoric. The
administration is building the volume of inflammatory rhetoric toward
Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up to the Iraq war. Strong
statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for
U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facility.
Surrogates in the administration, including the President himself,
have increasingly stressed a full range of negative Iranian behavior,
including that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, supplying
weapons, training and funding to special groups.
They also say that Iran is interfering with the peace process in the
Middle East. And they go on to talk about General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker as they argued that Iran is the major future threat
to stability in Iraq.
Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. When this point was dismissed by
the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran had long
since halted their nuclear enrichment, the administration criticized
the report.
Allow me to read a short selection of clips from recent press
clippings that expose the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the Bush
administration. This headline from the Daily Telegraph on April 7,
2008: British Fear U.S. Commander is Beating the Drum for Iran Strikes.
``British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in
Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed
Baghdad Government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus
about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack
on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment.''
Another headline: Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest
Threat to Iraq. This is in the Bloomberg News April 9, 2008. ``The so-
called `special groups,' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran,
played a `destructive role' in the recent clashes between extremist
militias and Iraqi Government forces in Basra and Baghdad, Petraeus
said. `Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way,' he
told the House Armed Services Committee today in Washington, his second
day of testimony to lawmakers. `Unchecked, the `special groups' pose
the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a Democratic Iraq.''
Again, that was the Bloomberg News, April 9, 2008.
Another headline, the Voice of America, April 2, 2008, Israel to
Redistribute Gas Masks Amid Fears of War with Iran.
``Israel's security Cabinet has decided to redistribute gas masks to
the entire population amid fears of a nonconventional war with Iran.
The last distribution was just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq 4 years
ago.''
Another headline in the New York Times, April 12, 2008. The headline
reads, Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says.
``Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq,
adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in
Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday. While Bush
administration officials have long denounced what they have described
as Iran's meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker's language was unusually strong
from Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been
turning up the volume on Iran.''
A further sign that the U.S. may be headed for war is Admiral
Fallon's resignation. In the aftermath of the disastrous invasion of
Iraq, there has been

[[Page 6067]]

discussion within media and in the military that senior military
officers should have resigned when they knew the White House to be
heading to a reckless war in Iraq.
Some are speculating that the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon is
a direct result of his steadfast opposition to war with Iran. He even
made his disagreements with the administration public before his
retirement.
In a now-famous profile that Admiral Fallon agreed to do for Esquire
magazine, he was characterized as the only man standing between war
with Iran.
Let me read an excerpt from that article.
This was Esquire magazine, March 11, 2008. The title is ``The Man
Between War and Peace.'' The article goes on to say that if in the
dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it will
all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it will all
come down to one, that same man. So while Admiral Fallon's boss,
President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to world war
III and his administration casually casts Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler, a crown it has awarded once
before, to deadly effect, it's left to Fallon, and apparently Fallon
alone, to argue that, as he told al Jazeera last fall, this constant
drumbeat of conflict is not helpful and not useful.
Another sign that the U.S. may be thinking about war is the offensive
against the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al Sadr has promised full-scale attacks
on America's interests in Iraq in the event of strikes on Iran. As
commander of the multinational force in Iraq, General David Petraeus
still presides as the commander of the Iraqi security forces as well.
Any operation against the Mahdi Army would have been authorized by him.
What motivation did the United States have in fueling a violent
confrontation with the powerful militia at a time when al Sadr had
declared a truce and the progress of the surge was being reported to
Congress?
One explanation is that recent operations against al Sadr's militia,
the Mahdi Army, may have been meant to neutralize possible resistance
inside of Iraq in the event of a strike on Iran.

{time} 2145

The following five reasons are taken verbatim from an article in U.S.
News and World Report that was published on March 5th entitled ``Six
Signs the U.S. May Be Headed For War in Iran.''
Before I go into the five reasons that I have taken verbatim from
this article in U.S. News and World Report, I am going to recognize the
Congresswoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee, who is cochair of
the Progressive Caucus. She is one of the co-founders of the Out of
Iraq Caucus. She has been consistent in her resistance to this war in
Iraq.
She is an organizer. She is a constant speaker on the speaking
engagement circuit, speaking with groups and organizations all over
this country who want to hear from Barbara Lee about what is going on
in Congress.
The question she is most confronted with is when will this Congress
end the war and bring our soldiers home? What are you going to do about
a President who is ignoring the will of the people and ignoring the
will of Congress in their attempts to resist the continued funding of
the war? Every weekend, somewhere in this country, Barbara Lee is
attempting to answer those questions and engage the American citizens
about what is happening here.
I yield to Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the gentlewoman from California, for
organizing this very important special order tonight. Let me just say
to you, Congresswoman Waters, your clear voice and your sound judgment
as the co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus has helped guide this
antiwar movement, not only here in the House of Representatives, but
throughout the country.
Your boldness and your vision in organizing those of us who knew that
this war was wrong from day one in putting together over, what, some 77
members now of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I have to salute you and thank
you for that, because we will never go back again. All we can do is go
forward to try to end this occupation and try to prevent another
preemptive war against Iran.
It is very timely that Congresswoman Waters has called us here
tonight to sound the alarm on Iran. It is truly disturbing to me to
hear many of the same drumbeats on this administration 's march to war
with Iran as we saw 5 years ago in the run-up to the war in Iraq. So I
want to provide just a little bit of history on Iraq to draw out some
of these parallels, in the hope that they will provide Congress and the
American people with a clear warning signal.
Madam Speaker, this discussion is also timely today because today is
April 15th, and millions of Americans across our country are right now
racing the clock to beat the tax filing deadline. Lots of them are
asking, how much do they owe and what is the government doing with
their money?
One answer, Madam Speaker, is that in the last 5 years, this
administration has spent nearly a half trillion dollars on the Iraq war
and occupation. This Iraq tax, and that is what it is, an Iraq tax,
comes out to approximately $16,500 for every American family of four.
Has the tax been worth it? Let's look at what we have gotten in
exchange.
More than 4,000 of the Nation's best and bravest have been killed.
More than 30,000 others have been wounded, many suffering permanent and
debilitating injuries. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
have died, and millions have been internally displaced or sought refuge
in neighboring countries. Meanwhile, the occupation of Iraq has caused
serious damage to America's international reputation and created a
generation, mind you, a generation of future enemies incensed by the
endless occupation of their country by a foreign power.
Madam Speaker, compounding the folly of this strategic blunder, the
$500 billion which American taxpayers already have spent on this
occupation is now undermining our ability to finance the investments
needed to address the pressing domestic needs of the American people
and to revive our sagging economy. Given what the Iraq tax has brought
American families, and this $500 billion is quickly mounting to almost
$3 trillion very soon, is anyone really surprised that the American
people are angry and demanding change?
The saddest aspect of this whole story and this whole episode, Madam
Speaker, is it did not have to be that way. Along with 125 of my
colleagues, a substantial majority of House Democrats, I opposed the
war, like Congresswoman Waters did, from the beginning, and we voted
against the resolution authorizing the use of military force.
I offered an amendment Congresswoman Waters supported, we got 72
votes during that period, to the original use of force resolution to
prohibit the administration, remember this, Congresswoman Waters, we
tried, we tried, we did everything we could do to try to keep the
administration from taking military action until the United Nations
could complete their inspections and confirm that Saddam Hussein's
regime indeed possessed weapons of mass destruction which it intended
to use against us or to give to our sworn enemies.
Had the Lee amendment been adopted, we would have learned much sooner
and at far less cost what the whole world knew, that evidentially we
didn't know, but some of us knew, but the whole world now knows,
including the American people, that Iraq did not pose an imminent
threat to the United States, was not involved in the September 11th
attacks, had no ties to al Qaeda and had no weapons of mass
destruction.
The war and occupation has also exacted an awful toll on our military
force, our structure, our readiness, and the men and women in uniform
and their families. General Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff,
testified before the Congress that the Army is out of balance. The
current demand of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the
substantial supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for
other contingencies.

[[Page 6068]]

Because of this administration's mistake, tens of thousands of
servicemen and women have been required to undertake lengthy
deployments into the war zone, two, three, and some even four times.
This has placed enormous strain on them and their families and
increased their risk of struggling with mental health issues, including
when they return home many, many post-traumatic stress issues that we
have never seen before. Nearly 60,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, and
most experts in the field believe the numbers could be much higher.
Some may ask, why is it necessary to review this history? Well, as
the old saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
The other reason for reviewing this history is because it goes straight
to the veracity and the credibility of this administration that brought
us this debacle and which may be maneuvering to reprise its strategic
and geopolitical incompetence by taking preemptive military action
against Iran.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the same distant drumbeats of a
coming war with Iran. The signs are very familiar. Nearly on a daily
basis we read or hear these from the administration, and let me just
repeat a few of these drumbeats that we hear.
They say Iran is the single greatest threat to the stability in Iraq,
although when I asked General Petraeus last week if Iran was in Iraq 5
years ago, he said they weren't really ``kissing cousins.'' I think
that is what his comment was. No, Iran was not in Iraq 5 years ago.
Iran is building nuclear weapons.
Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq, arming, training and
funding insurgents and terrorists.
Iran is interfering with the peace process in the Middle East.
I am reminded how the administration sent General Colin Powell, do
you remember that, Congresswoman Waters, the Secretary of State, by far
the most effective and respective spokesman, before the United Nations
Security Council to make the case to the world that Iraq posed an
imminent threat to regional peace and security. The case presented by
General Powell accomplished its mission, but its factual foundation
rested on falsehoods, misinformation and speculation masquerading as
evidence. To this day, General Powell regards his performance that day
as really a mark on an otherwise distinguished career of public service
to our Nation.
General Petraeus is the 2008 version, quite frankly, of General
Powell. He inspires more confidence than President Bush and is far more
credible than Vice President Cheney. But so did General Powell inspire
and bring this credibility to this administration, and he turned out to
be wrong; terribly wrong.
Again last week, General Petraeus testified that Iranian-backed so-
called special groups posed the greatest long-term threat to the
viability of a Democratic Iraq. He testified that it was these groups
that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of
government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the
capital and requiring Iraqi and coalition actions in response.
This is starting to sound like the groundwork being laid for the need
to take defensive action against Iran. This is unacceptable. We should
not be looking for an excuse to attack Iran. Congress should not stand
for yet another so-called preemptive military strike, and we should
take action to clearly prohibit any such attempt against Iran.
As I stated, we have been down this road before. We have learned a
simple truth from five hard and bitter years in Iraq. No unjust war
ever produced a just and lasting peace. It has not worked in Iraq. It
will not work in Iran.
What is needed is not another rush to unwarranted, unnecessary and
misguided military action, but rather a strong diplomatic surge for
peace and reconciliation. And, yes, I do believe that a nuclear-armed
Iran poses a danger. I believe we need to move forward with
nonproliferation efforts, including looking at our own arsenal of
nuclear weapons in our own country. Nuclear weapons should not be an
option at this point, given the dangers of the world. So we need to
address nuclear nonproliferation in the context of a strong diplomatic
initiative.
One of the most important first steps we should take is to have
direct, comprehensive and unconditional bilateral talks with Iran. To
facilitate this goal, it is imperative for the administration to show
that it is serious in this endeavor by appointing a special envoy. I
think we need to appoint a special person, an individual who does
nothing but ensure that we move forward to reduce the tensions in the
region, and this envoy should receive the necessary support to carry
out his or her mandate.
That is why I introduced H.R. 5056, the Iran Diplomatic
Accountability Act of 2008. Among other things, this bill directs the
President to appoint a high level envoy empowered to conduct direct,
unconditional, bilateral negotiations with Iran for the purpose of
easing tensions and normalizing relations between the United States and
Iran. No one says this is going to be easy, but we must start
somewhere.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released last week
representing the consensus view of our 16 intelligence agencies clearly
indicates that Iran is nowhere close to having nuclear weapons
capability. The NIE assessment underscores why it is critical for
Congress to ensure that this administration's saber rattling against
Iran does not turn into a march to war. We have been down this path
before.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the last 5 years in Iraq demonstrates
the folly of rushing off to start a war. We don't need another war in
Iran. We need to end the war in Iraq and fully fund the redeployment of
American troops so that they may be reunited with their families in the
United States. We need to use our funds to support them, protect them,
and bring them home. And we need to begin to move forward to address
the real issues with regard to Iran and begin to take the military
option off of the table, because our President, this country always has
the military option, and it makes no sense to use this or to talk about
it if we truly intend to reduce tensions and look for some form of
global peace and security.
Thank you, again, Congresswoman Waters for calling us together today.
Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for
her consistent and persistent leadership on this issue of war in Iraq,
and I thank her for coming to the floor this evening to help sound the
bell against a possible march to war with Iran.
We have been joined by another one of our colleagues who too has been
consistent in his opposition to this war. From the very day that he
first came to this chamber, he made it clear where he stood on this
war. He has joined with us on the floor on many other occasions and it
is a constant part of his agenda wherever he is to remind people that
we are in a war that makes no sense, where lives are being lost, and
hopes and dreams are being dashed.
He brings a special kind of understanding about what is going on
because of his familiarity with the Arab nations and with Islam, and he
has done a wonderful job of helping to teach and introduce to the
Members of this Congress other cultures and helping us to understand
how they operate, what they are all about, and helping us to gain
respect for those that sometimes are singled out for war, when, of
course, problems and issues could be handled with diplomacy.
I am proud to yield time to Representative Keith Ellison to sound the
alarm.

{time} 2200

Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank you, Congressman Waters and
Congressman Lee. Before I got to Congress I thought both of you just
were towering heroes of peace. Now that I have been here and had the
chance to get to know both of you, I am certain that I was right from
the very first impression I had of you. Thank you for standing up and
calling this special order tonight.

[[Page 6069]]

The point I would like to make is simply this. We see in Iran a
country we have not had any open diplomatic relationships with since
1979, except for brief moments around IEDs last summer. The meetings
have not been continued, and, in essence, we have had no real
diplomatic relationships with Iran in many, many years.
Many Americans don't remember the day when we did have relationships
with Iran. Yet, despite all these years of having no diplomatic ties to
Iran, no open communications, channels of communications, it really has
not solved any of the problems. Not talking has not helped.
I want to join with Representative Waters and Representative Lee in
calling for an open dialogue, unconditional bilateral dialogue.
Dialogue is not a gift, dialogue is not a present, dialogue is not a
reward.
Dialogue is a tool that can help us stabilize the world, bring peace
to millions and millions of people all over the world. Dialogues should
not be used as some sort of a gift. It doesn't make sense for any
nation to say capitulate to our demands, and then we will talk to you.
The very purpose of negotiation is to say, let's talk, and the first
agenda item could be serious problems we have with one another.
But the start is talking, unconditional talking, talking with a clear
agenda in mind, talking with no illusions about differences. But
talking, nonetheless, is something that I think we need, and we need it
now.
I want to say that our effort to isolate Iran by not talking to Iran,
reminds me of our effort of trying to isolate Cuba by not talking to
Cuba. Now everybody in the world does business with Cuba except the
United States. American farmers wanting to sell grain, Cubans want to
buy stuff from the U.S., people wanting to see family, those things are
hampered because we are the only ones in the world maintaining this
policy of nondialogue. I fear that we could end up in the same way with
Iran.
Let me just point out an article in the Times online from March 3,
2008. The headline is, ``Four kisses, then the band played: the day
former foes became friends.''
It starts out describing a meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
Nouri al-Maliki. It goes on to talk about how a young girl dressed in a
white dress clutched a bouquet of flowers as she waited with a small
boy in a smart suit to greet President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who began a
historic visit to Iraq.
Earlier today, we heard a speaker who I won't name say that, oh, the
United States needs to get with China and Russia to isolate Iran. China
and Russia, we can't even get Iraq to isolate Iran.
We can't even get Iraq, a country we have invaded and essentially
have taken over, though it does operate under the guise of sovereignty,
we can't even get them to say don't talk to Iran. They have open
relationships with Iran and are building them more and stronger every
day. It doesn't make any sense.
Now, it's not just Iraq that has a welcome mat for Iran. But let me
just say that when Americans, Members of Congress go to Iraq, all of us
know we go into military aircraft that takes evasive maneuvers into
Baghdad, because we are concerned about our safety.
This is a fact. So much for isolating Iran from Iraq. Okay, well,
then, what about another country, Pakistan. We send a lot of money to
Pakistan. Yet Pakistan announced in a March 5, 2008 article, the Times
of India, Iran, on Wednesday, said it was ``ready to sign the India-
Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline deal,'' but technical issues between the two
are hindering the process.
``We are ready to sign the agreement as soon as possible,'' Iranian
Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs said. ``Everything is okay
from our side. There are some technical issues between India and
Pakistan,'' he said.
``The India-Pakistan-Iran pipeline, which is dubbed as the 'Peace
Pipeline,' is stuck over issues such as price and transition fees.''
So much for isolating Iran from Pakistan and India. All right, so
Iraq, they are talking to them, Iran, Pakistan and India are talking,
but, okay, maybe we can still get Russia and China, countries that have
militaries, countries that have economies, countries that have been
freestanding and independent for many, many, many, many, many years.
Okay, what about Afghanistan? Isn't that country essentially a failed
state which we invaded and kicked out the Taliban and now are trying to
reconstruct today?
``In the electricity substation just outside of Herat, western
Afghanistan, there's the loud hum of power--Iranian power,'' that's
right. ``More electricity reaches Herat than the city can use, but the
industrial park just across the road from the NATO military base is
putting it to good use.
``Small plastic bottles of fizzy orange juice shuffle along the
conveyor belt to be labeled and packed--the building is noticeably
Iranian in design and the markings on the machinery show exactly which
country helped these Afghan businessmen.
``The camels grazing outside cautiously cross the fast, straight,
asphalt road--one of the best roads in Afghanistan stretching 120km to
the border.
``Soon a railway will link Afghanistan to Europe, or so boasts the
Iranian government.''
I would just mention, with a quick Google search, Iraq, India,
Pakistan and, now, Afghanistan are all coalescing economically with
Iran. We are not talking to Iran. We don't talk to Iran. We don't want
to try to get into that market of 70 million people. We don't want to
try to open up diplomatic ties and work on issues.
We are not trying to solve this nuclear conflict with dialogue,
discussion and open conversation. We are just trying to isolate them,
but nothing suggested we are being successful at doing that.
The fact is maybe isolation of Iran is not the right tactic. Maybe
the right tactic is to try to talk to them, to try to build a better
relationship, to try to have cultural exchange, try to have exchange of
views, different though they may be, with an eye toward a more peaceful
world, with an eye toward a world in which people can have security and
in which an eye toward which the world can rest and feel their children
are safe at night.
The fact is this saber rattling, I remember that it was about maybe
16 months ago that I sat in my first meeting that I ever had with the
President, with, I believe, Representative Lee and Representative
Waters. I think it was Representative Lee who said, are you, Mr.
President, planning on hitting Iran? He gave us a sure statement that
he was not.
Yet ever since that time, all we have been hearing, time and time
again is that Iran is the problem.
I don't know how Iran could be the problem in Iraq without the
complicity of the Iraqi government. I mean, I need somebody to correct
me on this point because I just don't get it. How can Iran be an issue
in Iraq unless Iraq wants them in the country. It just doesn't make any
other kind of sense to me, and I need somebody to explain that, because
maybe I have just not been in Congress long enough to get it.
Let me just say, I want to move aside now, and I want to thank the
two Members who have been leading the charge, along with Congresswoman
Woolsey, who is recovering from back surgery. I know if she was feeling
better she would be right better with you, the triad, the triad for
peace. I admire you so much.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, I am so pleased and proud to have
been joined by my colleagues here this evening to sound the alarm. Let
me say that again, we are sounding the alarm. We are opening up the
debate. We are raising the questions. We are challenging this
administration on the issue of war with Iran.
We are saying, Mr. President, we have watched, we have listened, and
we have learned. We are smarter people when we hear talk about war,
when we hear accusations being made. When we hear a march to war we now
recognize it for what it is. It is a given that we have this knowledge
that we have acquired since we have been here since the start of the
war with Iraq. We do

[[Page 6070]]

not intend to sit idly by without opening up the discussion, without
making the challenge, without raising the questions.
As I said, prior to the opening lines of the presentation that was
just given by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, there were signs of war that
have been identified, not only by some of the experts that we have been
talking to, but by those who have been writing and watching what has
been going on.
As I mentioned before, there is talk, and there are news articles.
U.S. News & World Report, published on March 11, title, ``6 Signs the
U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.'' Let me repeat that, U.S. News &
World Report published on March 11 titled ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be
Headed for War in Iran.''
Warships off of Lebanon, with the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much
the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the
Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based war planes and sea
launch missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and
nuclear infrastructure.
``Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month,
replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern
over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in
that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the
eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to
keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to
Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed
ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system
missile defense against air attacks.''
This article goes on to talk about ``Vice President Cheney's peace
trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what
is described as a Mid East trip to try to give a boost to stalled
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other
stops: One, Oman, is a key military and ally and logistics hub for
military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the
narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit choke point
into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade
in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose
support would be sought before any military action given its ability to
increase oil supplies, if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March, 2002,
Cheney made a high-profile Mid East trip to Saudi Arabia and other
nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy to Iraq and
not war, which began a year later.''
Vice President Cheney has been on that trip, as we pretty well know,
based on the advanced intelligence revealed by this very, very well-
placed article.
They go on to talk about the Israeli air strike on Syria.

{time} 2215

Israel's air strike deep in Syria last October was reported to have
targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy,
and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear
program.
An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the
real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeted
electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The
location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran. That
is also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Knowing
the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to
reduce the risk for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.
They go on to give the other identification markers that should be
watched and should be vetted.
Israeli comments. Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this
month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from
getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have
quite consistently said that they are prepared to act alone if that
becomes necessary to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons
threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given
the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?
Israel's war with Hezbollah. While this seems a bit old, Israel's
July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was
seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it
anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not
only as a threat on its own, but also as a possible Iranian surrogate
force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to
push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border
with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied
arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been
able to rearm through a United Nations force that polices a border
buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
So as you can see, there is quite a bit of reason to be concerned
about the administration's saber-rattling towards Iran. There is no way
to prove their intentions, and I hope we are wrong, but we really can't
afford to be wrong.
Another encounter like in January between the U.S. Navy and an
Iranian speedboat could be used as an excuse for retaliation similar to
the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the Vietnam War. The White House
would simply claim that we were ``provoked'' and were defending
ourselves.
I would like to stop at this time and yield time to the gentlelady
from Houston, Texas, who has been consistent in her work with the Out-
of-Iraq Caucus in an attempt to bring our soldiers home. It is with
great pleasure that I yield to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman,
Maxine Waters. I would say I am delighted to be part of the Out-of-Iraq
Caucus, but that is not the appropriate term. I am delighted, however,
to join my colleagues, Chairwoman Waters and Congresswoman Barbara Lee
and the other members who have participated and submitted their
statement.
I wanted to join my colleagues because it has been a very long
journey. I remind Congresswoman Waters in the fall of 2002, we were
working hard for people to study the resolution being put before them.
We garnered some 133-plus votes to vote in opposition to the then-Iraq
resolution.
I want to speak constitutionally and why this special order and the
position that Members are taking in opposing any preemptive attack or
invasion of Iran and standing solidly against the perceived authority
that the President may have.
Frankly, if we look at the 2002 resolution, we will find that it can
be assessed that the President's authority has expired. Saddam Hussein
is no longer there. Elements of the resolution required that. The
government has changed. There has been a democratic election, and there
may be some question as to whether the adherence of the U.N. Security
Council resolution is still part of that 2002 war resolution. But I
would argue that there have been so many resolutions in the U.N. we
could also concede the point that we have protected or adhered to those
resolutions.
I truly believe that we are at such a point in history that any
actions by the President would warrant extreme actions; or I should not
suggest extreme, I should suggest constitutional actions by this
Congress. It may warrant raising issues of impeachment. The reason I
say that is to use the War Powers Act in a way that ignores the
constitutional privilege and right of this Congress to declare war, I
believe, is not doing well by the American people.
We already know the results of a war without end, the Iraq war, that
is costing $339 million a day, that has already gone past a trillion
dollars, that has seen 9,500 of our soldiers injured or maimed,
sometimes injured or maimed for life, to see 4,000-plus die. It is a
war without end.
Frankly, the question has to become what is the President's goal and
intent if he has an idea that Iran is the next target. Has he looked to
diplomacy and looked to the question of working with China or Russia to
contain Iran? Has he looked at negotiation with the individuals in Iran
who really may be interested in some sort of resolution? Is

[[Page 6071]]

he buying into the constant refrain that Iran is providing the weapons
in Iraq? Is he also looking to the perceived friendship between the
Iraq government and the Iran government? None of the above.
What I sense in the administration is a percolating attempt to attack
Iran, and that percolating attempt based upon the representation of
nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to possess the capacity to engage
and to utilize nuclear weapons, nor am I interested in protecting an
Iran that has been hostile to the world. I am not interested in
coddling terrorists. But we can clearly see that the policies in Iraq
have not deterred the terrorists. They have only grown the terrorists.
And I would question whether the only way to create peace in the Mid
East is to again attack another country in the Mid East.
It is important that we continue to engage for two distinct states,
the Palestinian and Israel negotiations. I would have hoped that this
administration would have spent their time following through on the
road map that the President announced some few years back. I believe
that we were distracted in Iraq. We were distracted in Iraq from
Afghanistan and from solving the Palestinian-Israeli question.
So I rise today to join my colleagues and say not on my watch,
absolutely not. The statistics of the war in Iraq are devastating. Yes,
I am prepared today to declare a military success in Iraq. A military
success means that our soldiers on one and two and three and four
redeployments have done everything the Commander in Chief has asked
them to do. Saddam Hussein is gone, there have been democratic
elections, and U.N. resolutions adhered to. Bring those soldiers home,
declare a military success, and make the statement to the American
people that we will never recklessly invade another country.
Iran is somewhat different from Iraq; and, therefore, may have a
different story to tell. It may not be the easy route that they might
have thought Iraq was. But frankly, my view is that we have crossed the
constitutional bounds and that as I yield back to the distinguished
chairwoman, I simply believe that we have come to a crisis point that
this Congress must accept its duty and say to the President that no war
can be declared without a vote of the United States Congress under the
Constitution, and I would join with my colleagues, the chairman of the
Human Right Subcommittee on International Issues of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Chairman Delahunt, to suggest that the War Powers Act should
be amended and should now be that it can only be utilized by a
President when the Nation is under imminent attack and when there is
necessity to go forward to protect our citizens. Other than that, that
War Powers Act should be amended, it should be drawn down, and we
should stand with the Constitution. No invasion of Iran on my watch,
and constitutional implications for the President of the United States
if such attack is proposed.
I thank the distinguished gentlelady for her leadership in the Out-
of-Iraq Caucus.
I join my colleagues here tonight to discuss a very important issue:
the possibility that this Administration may be intent on leading us
into another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran. I would
like to thank my colleague Congresswoman Waters for organizing this
special order on Iran. Even as we remain engaged in a war in Iraq to
which there is no military solution, this Administration has begun
beating the drum for war with Iran. I strongly urge my congressional
colleagues to send a clear message to President Bush that he does not
currently have authorization to use military force against Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that using a military strike against Iran
would be a colossal error. As a nation, we are still paying an
unacceptably high price for this Administration's ill-advised and ill-
executed invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In 2002, when I voted against
the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq, I did so because I believed that this would be a war
without end. I believed this resolution would trap us in a conflict
that, like the Vietnam War, would consume American resources and lives
without tangible yield. Unfortunately for the people of both this
country and Iraq, this has proven true.
As a nation, we have already paid an enormous price for the war in
Iraq. We have squandered an exponentially increasing amount of money,
and, worst of all, lost an unacceptably large number of American lives.
However, the over 4,000 U.S. casualties and the $3,919 per second
($123.6 billion per year) we are spending in Iraq have bought neither
peace nor security.
Mr. Speaker, even as our troops are caught in the midst of
instability and civil war in Iraq, the President has begun the march to
war with Iran. We cannot compound the mistakes of the Iraq war with the
even bigger mistake of opening up a second military conflict in the
Middle East. And yet, the Administration has begun to set the stage for
a U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facilities by issuing
strong statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq, and using
inflammatory rhetoric against Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up
to the Iraq war.
In recent weeks, the Administration has increasingly referred to
negative behavior of the Iranian regime. Despite contrary findings by
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Bush has increasingly stated
that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The Administration has also
cited Iran as a cause of instability in Iraq, and has argued that Iran
is killing U.S. soldiers and supplying weapons, training, and funding.
I certainly believe that the current state of affairs in Iran, and
specifically those issues relating to U.S. sanctions on Iran and the
security of the region, are extremely important and in desperate need
of discussion. As a Member of Congress, I find Iran's support of
terrorist organizations, pursuit of nuclear weapons, and dismal human
rights record to be extremely worrisome. However, I am also concerned
by what appears to be movement by this Administration toward yet
another war in the Gulf region, without having first exhausted
diplomatic means of addressing any conflicts.
I have long been an advocate of a free, independent, and democratic
Iran. I believe in an Iran that holds free elections, follows the rule
of law, and is home to a vibrant civil society; an Iran that is a
responsible member of the region and the international community,
particularly with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An
Iran that, unfortunately, we do not see today.
The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the
region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran's polity, is to
assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social,
and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in
which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current
Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many
and diverse minorities.
The controversy surrounding Iran's procurement of nuclear energy is
cause for great concern; however, the administration's avoidance of any
and all diplomatic relations with Iran is cause for greater alarm.
Moreover, the current rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding
war with Iran is both counterproductive and highly inflammatory. While
full diplomatic, political, and economic relations between the U.S. and
Iran cannot be normalized unless and until enforceable safeguards are
put in place to prevent the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program,
these policy objectives should not constitute pre-conditions for any
diplomatic dialogue.
Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and
deepening relationships with the Iranian people would help foster
greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the
United States and would enhance the stability and the security of the
Persian Gulf region. Doing so would reduce the threat of the
proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing
other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of
establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be
over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the
means through which we resolve this looming crisis.
Mr. Speaker, Middle East experts have repeatedly stated that a U.S.
attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences. Among possible
outcomes, many experts agree, would be an Iranian counter-attack on
U.S. and Israeli interests in the region or throughout the world. Such
an attack could also lead to a greater Middle East War, and would
undoubtedly bring with it a greater loss of life and financial burden.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time that we need to be looking to ending one
Middle East conflict, not to beginning another. We need to work to
rebuild our standing in the international community, not to raise
further enmity in the Middle East and beyond by attacking another
nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to speak out against any
potential military strike in Iran.

[[Page 6072]]

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady from Texas, and I am very, very
appreciative of the fact that the gentlelady is one of the Members of
Congress that we can always count on to confront the challenges that we
are confronted with, particularly as it relates to this war, and at
this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I, too, want to commend the gentlelady from Texas for
raising some of the constitutional issues that we have to grapple with
each and every day.
I would like to talk briefly about the issue of the preemptive strike
which is central to this administration's foreign and military policy.
In essence what the Bush administration has decided is that it is all
right, and actually it is their standard, to be able to use force not
necessarily in the face of an imminent threat, but it is all right and
it is a policy of this administration to be able to use force to
prevent a future perceived threat. All of this is couched in this
global war on terror where oftentimes they believe they do have a blank
check to use force wherever they want to go in the world.
When you look at what they are trying to do now in Iraq with regard
to the security agreements, they are trying to negotiate a permanent
military presence in Iraq without even coming back to Congress to try
to get the authority to do that. I think minimally, and we have several
bills that have been introduced into this body, that basically just say
before the administration decides to use force or take military actions
or strike Iran, minimally they must come to Congress to seek
authorization.
Well, for the life of me, this is the People's House. I cannot figure
out why we cannot have a resolution as basic as that come to this body
so we can pass that. I think that should be a minimum standard to
protect the American people from first of all what could be total
chaos. Secondly, when you just look at the expenditure of resources and
what a possible preemptive strike could cost as it relates to Iran in
terms of treasury, blood, our young men and women and also our
financial resources. We may just be a few voices in the wilderness
crying out tonight, but we are crying out very loudly and asking the
American people to look at these signs because as Congresswoman Waters
said, we are sounding the alarm so we can stop what appears to be on
the horizon.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentlelady would yield, I just came
back from Iraq, and you are so right. After going and I think getting a
very wide view of the status of affairs there, clearly as we have
understood or understand, the government is leaning on the captains of
our military. Ranks at the captain level are like the government. There
is no seeming intent or plan that would cease the Maliki government
from leaning on the United States military, using it as a crutch. So
there is no evidence that suggests that they don't intend to have
permanent military bases. In fact, every indication from the
presentations of the military and others is that they would have it. I
believe they are in violation of maybe not the rules of this House, but
certainly the respect of the three branches of government.
Finally, I would say that I have legislation that declares a military
success, that lists the criteria under which our soldiers went in, and
moves it to a diplomatic surge. We should not fool ourselves. The
intent is a permanent base that allows them to do the preemptive strike
that you are speaking of against any country in the Mideast, and in
particular Iran. I believe we have to stop it now, and we have to stop
it forever, and we have to lean on the Constitution because we have
seen over the last couple of years the Constitution ignored, and that
simply cannot stand in this place called America.

{time} 2230

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much to both Sheila Jackson-Lee and
Barbara Lee for, again, their constant and consistent struggle working
in this House against the war.
Mr. Speaker, and Members, press reports have given us some
indications of the thrust of current White House directed planning. The
strike would be against Iranian terrorist facilities, the Revolutionary
Guard units and/or nuclear production facilities, a limited air strike
operation with the objective of changing Iranian behavior. Those who
argue for the strike are saying there will be very few U.S. casualties
and very few Iranian civilian casualties. Nevertheless, we all know
that U.S. strikes against Iran would be disastrous.
Middle East experts generally agree that Iran would respond to a U.S.
strike by attacking U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the region
and possibly globally. These strikes would lead to a greater Middle
East war, including greater loss of life, financial burden, over
stretch of our military and worse.
We're sounding the alarm this evening and we are sending a message to
the President of the United States of America and to the Vice
President, particularly now to the Vice President, who, when he was
reminded by an ABC News reporter that the recent polls show that two-
thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, his
response, ``and so?''
Well, Mr. Vice President, our ``and so'' to you tonight is, and so
the American people do not want us to continue this war in Iraq and to
air strike in Iran. We're sounding the alarm. And I will yield time to
the gentleman who just left the Speaker's seat to complete this
colloquy that we've had here this evening.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I just want to again thank
Representatives Waters and Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee.
I just want to make a few quick points. We're under no illusions. I
think that by this special order, I don't think anyone intends to
excuse bellicose, inflammatory remarks that have been made by the
President of Iran. There's no excusing that. But you don't deal with
bellicose remarks with a war. You deal with bellicose remarks by
issuing a statement condemning those statements, but not with a war.
And I don't think any bellicose statements or inflammatory remarks by
the President of Iran could ever justify an attack which will result in
the massive loss of life.
I also want to say that a strike against Iran, no one can predict
what the consequences of that will be. Will it excite the Shiia
community in Pakistan, of which 30 percent of the people are Shiia
there? What will it do to Afghanistan?
Again, Iran is providing electricity in Afghanistan in an effective
way, much, much more than other countries have done. Again, Kabul and
Kandajar are not electrified 100 percent of the time.
What will happen in Lebanon? Will that inflame another war such as
the one in the summer of 2006? That could inflame the region, and no
one knows whether bombs will start falling from other parts of the
region.
This war against Iran, a strike against Iran has no clear outcome. It
is a very bad idea. And I think that what we must do is pursue
diplomatic negotiations, and remember that negotiation is not a reward,
it's not a gift, it's not a present; it's a tool for the security of
the world.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, and Members, I am pleased that we have
taken time from our schedules to come to the floor tonight to sound the
alarm. The saber rattling is going on by this administration. The
remarks that we're hearing day in and day out are more accusatory
toward Iran. We are made to believe that we are somehow being placed at
a great threat by Iran.
And so we know where this is going. We know what this means, and
we're saying, we must not rule out diplomacy. We must believe that we
can settle differences by way of diplomacy.
We know that we've still got work to do on Iraq. We've still got to
make many Members of this House feel comfortable with the idea that
they can confront their President, that they can still be very, very
patriotic as they stand up against war and bringing our soldiers home.
We know that the work has to be done, but we've got to add to that work
the fact that we can stop an airstrike on Iran and we can stop the

[[Page 6073]]

notion that somehow we must send more soldiers in.

____________________

AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE WAR IN IRAQ

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellison). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)
is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the Speaker for the time. And Mr. Speaker,
what I would like to talk about today, and it's actually a pretty good
follow-up to the previous special order by Ms. Waters, who is a
classmate of mine, going back to, I was going to say 1891, but going
back to 1991, Maxine and I came in as freshman and we've been here now
for the past 17 years. And the previous discussion about the Iraq war,
the relationship with Iran, I think, leads fairly well into the special
order that I am prepared to give tonight.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is to give a presentation on the
war in Iraq, the Middle East, an American perspective on the Cold War
that engulfed the world for many decades, an American perspective on
the Cold War and how it impacted the Middle East, the present crisis in
the Middle East and Iraq, from an American perspective, and an American
perspective on the way forward.
When I say an American perspective, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying
to relate an idea that the United States, for the past 50 years, has
seen itself not as a lone super power in the world, but as a Nation, as
Walt Whitman described, the race of races, the United States, the
melting pot.
The United States has engaged itself in the fiber of the
international community, and has not seen itself as a lone ranger in
the international arena of conflict, of economy, of culture, of
exchanges. The United States has seen itself as an integrated part of
the international community in much of its history. And so, tonight,
when I talk about the U.S. view of the war in Iraq, it is to illustrate
the complexity of that conflict, the complexity of the intrigue and
violence that we are now seeing, the complexity of the way forward,
but, in fact, there is a way forward.
So I want to give a brief history covering about the last 60 years.
And what I would like to share with the American people, Mr. Speaker,
among many, many periodicals, many books, many resources, I'd like to
share ideas tonight from seven books.
The first one is Violent Politics by William Polk, who served in the
Kennedy and Johnson Administration. Violent politics is not what we see
here on the House floor. Violent politics is when diplomacy fails and
war begins, war usually that engulfs communities or regions, not in
what we saw in World War II, but in insurgencies, where there are no
munitions factories to bomb, there are no supply lines to bomb, there
are no massive armies to bomb or thousands of tanks to take out, but
violent politics as it envelops regions in insurgencies.
And is there an effective counter insurgency to that particular break
down in diplomacy?
We're seeing an insurgency in the Middle East, in the Middle East, in
Iraq, in Afghanistan, and certainly in other places. In Violent
Politics, William Polk gives an idea of how an insurgency actually
works, and how you can deal with an insurgency like we're experiencing
now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The other book is Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. How did we get involved in
Iraq? What were the mistakes, the very clear, obvious mistakes over the
planning in the first few years?
The next one is by Steven Kinzer, All the Shah's Men; America's
relationship with a large country that is seeking to have influence for
self-defense purposes, mainly, the country of Iran.
The next one is Trita Parsi who wrote Treacherous Alliance. What is
the arrangement or what has been the arrangement or the alliance and
sometimes the verbal conflict between Israel and Iran?
The next is Tony Zinni, who was Commander of CENTCOM for a number of
years, spent much of his military Marine career in the Middle East. He
wrote a book about the Battle for Peace. Tony Zinni, like President
Eisenhower, knows you need a strong military, strong intelligence, and
consensus in dialogue and diplomacy. That plays a vital role in actions
that the United States is involved in.
An interesting book called Human Options by Norman Cousins. What kind
of decisions do we make? Why do we make them? And do we know all the
options that are before us?
The last book is a little bit older. It's about the Vietnam war,
called Why Vietnam? How did we get involved in that conflict? It's
written by a man called Archimedes Patty, who was among the first
Americans to meet Ho Chi Minh in 1945; sent there by this government as
the head of the OSS or the Office of Strategic Services, which was the
forerunner of the CIA, to find out how we can find people in Indochina,
to see, to gather intelligence about the Japanese troop movements in
that region of the world since we couldn't get any intelligence from
the French or the Chinese or anybody else.
And Archimedes Patty discovered this man, the head of the Viet Minh,
known as Ho Chi Minh that was willing to help and in fact did help the
United States gather intelligence on Japanese troop movements in
Indochina; helped many, many, many Americans, downed pilots and so on,
and allied himself with the United States in 1945, hoping to get help
from the United States, not from Russia, not from China, to gain his
independence from French colonial rule. A fabulous book that shows the
intricacies of how diplomacy works sometimes, and how the bureaucracy
doesn't always work too well when communicating those kinds of pieces
of information.
Seven books, Violent Politics, Fiasco, All the Shah's Men,
Treacherous Alliance, Battle for Peace, Human Options, Why Vietnam.
Sounds like a tall order.
But, Mr. Speaker, I can imagine the American public, who have some
dissatisfaction, some apprehension, some anger, some wanting a ray of
hope about the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can see the American
public, over the next many months, turning the television off every
single night for 1 or 2 hours, every night, and dedicating themselves
to help the solution, the American solution, the American solution of
how to solve this difficult problem in the Middle East, by becoming
informed, by finding out information, by becoming more knowledgeable
about these issues, not waiting for the government that people
sometimes assume is competent, but being a part of the process.
Now, I mentioned the book Human Options by Norman Cousins. And I want
to give you two quotes out of that book to frame this discussion
tonight. The first one is, ``Knowledge is the solvent for danger.'' You
want to solve a problem? You need a couple of things. You need
initiative, of course. You're going to turn the TV off and read these
books. You need initiative. And then as you read this material, some of
it is pretty intricate, exquisite detail, complicated. But you need
some ingenuity and intellect to figure it out. And you have that.
But what this assignment will give to you is knowledge. It'll give
you information. It'll give you a depth of information so that, you, as
an individual, can become more competent to share this with your fellow
Americans and maybe even write your congressman.
The other one in Human Options, the quote, is ``History is a vast
early warning system.'' We know more about Vietnam, or we should today,
than we did 40 years ago, 50 years ago when we became embroiled in that
tragic conflict.
And we say we should have had, you know, it's okay to say it now, and
hindsight is better than foresight. We've had 40 years of experience to
know what was good and what was bad about that conflict. But I will
tell you that when the United States became involved in that violent
conflict, we already had all the information we need to know. We needed
to understand the

[[Page 6074]]

history of our relationship with Indochina, with China, and their
relationship, Vietnam, with the rest of the world. But we didn't bother
to understand or listen carefully enough to what Archimedes Patty was
saying when he spoke to Ho Chi Minh. We didn't know the history of
Vietnam in 1945 in 1965, and we should have.

{time} 2245

History is a vast early warning system. We owe it to the soldiers in
Iraq, we owe it to the soldiers in Afghanistan, we owe it to eighth
graders and ninth graders in high school today who will graduate in
just a few years and should not have to be involved in a conflict that,
if we put our intellect together with enough knowledge, this can be
solved.
So I would suggest to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that every
single night, if you're a patriotic American, you want to solve this
problem. You want to commit yourself to bringing the troops home in a
responsible fashion, find some source of information, read it
objectively.
You know, Rudyard Kipling, the writer and poet from Great Britain,
traveled the world, spent much time in India, had a son who died in
World War I in northern France in a violent struggle. And to express
his sorrow, Rudyard Kipling said, why did young men die because old men
lied?
I want to paraphrase that today. Old men should talk before they send
young men to die. We should talk. We should be knowledgeable. We should
spend the time to understand the nature of history, the nature of
conflict.
Let's take a short walk back in history to the Cold War and some of
its successes and failures.
President Eisenhower and the leader of the Soviet Union, Premier
Khrushchev, Nikita Khrushchev, bitter enemies, faced off with thousands
of nuclear weapons all armed, ready to go at a moment's notice. We know
that Khrushchev told the United States and the Western powers many,
many times that he was going to bury us. One time in the United
Nations, we remember this, Nikita Khrushchev took his shoes off,
pounded the podium, looked right at the western diplomats--ours was
Henry Cabot Lodge at the time--pointed his finger and said, we will
bury you.
What was Eisenhower's response during the time that he was President
of the United States to these kinds of threats from the Soviet Union,
from Nikita Khrushchev? Open dialogue. He invited President Khrushchev
to come and tour American cities, ride on American trains, go to our
suburbs, visit our farms, visit our schools. President Eisenhower's
response was dialogue.
What happened in 1962 when it was discovered by our spy planes that
Cuba, Fidel Castro, had deployable nuclear weapons in Cuba 90 miles off
the coast of Florida? What was Kennedy's response? Call the Kremlin.
Have a dialogue. Negotiate with the Soviet Union. Talk to Nikita
Khrushchev. What happened? The weapons were removed; we avoided war.
China, Communist China, said that they would not mind if half the
population of China was wiped off the face of the earth as long as they
destroyed the United States. Violent rhetoric pointed at the United
States. What was President Nixon's response to Mao Zedong? Nixon went
to China. Nixon opened the dialogue that continues today.
Is China today a model democracy? No. Does China have human rights
violations? Yes. Are they well-known? Do we know that they continue to
violate freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion? Do
they continue to violate human rights? The answer is yes. What is our
response to China? It's our biggest trading partner. We constantly have
a dialogue. The Olympics will be held there. Do we condemn the Chinese
for human rights violations? How do we deal with it? Do we get
ourselves in violent politics? No. The answer is dialogue.
Those were our successes. They continue to be a struggle. They
continue to be a challenge, but we continue to pursue them through
dialogue.
What happened in Vietnam? Ho Chi Minh. A tiny old man with slight
whiskers who, in 1945, wanted to ally himself with the United States to
gain sovereignty from under the French colonial rule. What happened in
the 1950s? Senator McCarthy talked about communism. John Foster Douglas
wanted to contain Communism. We somehow didn't listen to the people in
the State Department or the CIA. We somehow didn't follow that path to
dialogue with Khrushchev or dialogue that got ourselves out of the
Cuban missile crisis or dialogue with Mao Zedong.
So what happened because there wasn't a dialogue? 58,000 Americans
died. Hundreds of thousands were wounded. Post-traumatic stress
syndrome still affects thousands of Vietnam veterans. Well more than a
million Vietnamese died because we didn't have the dialogue.
It's time, Mr. Speaker, for the American public to really understand
the complexities of international politics. The dialogue,
communications, consensus can be a strong and powerful tool to enhance
America's interest. America does not become stronger by putting more
people in cemeteries as a result of these violent conflicts.
Let's take a look at the Middle East, the area that we're now dealing
with, during the Cold War.
Then, as now, it was a complex place. There was intrigue there, and
there was a great deal of violence. Let's look at some of the incidents
that the United States has been involved in or was involved in.
In 1953, actually in 1950, Muhammed Mossadeq was a duly elected Prime
Minister of Iran running a secular country moving toward democracy. But
because of some misunderstandings, believe it or not, between what the
British Petroleum Company, called the Anglo Persian Petroleum Company,
which is now today BP, British Petroleum, they had some strong
disagreements with Muhammed Mossadeq. The United States, under John
Foster Dulles, was thinking, although they were wrong, that Muhommad
Mossadeq had a strong relationship with the Soviet Union and he might
turn to communism.
In 1953, we were at the very early stages of the Cold War, and a lot
of things were going on. But as a result of some misunderstanding, the
United States planned a coup inside its embassy in Tehran, and it
turned out to be a very violent, very bloody coup in which their duly
elected prime minister was removed from office, put under house arrest
for the rest of his life. And we put in the Shah. The United States put
in the Shah. In 1953, we broke down a relationship that we had had with
Iran for many, many years.
The United States was looked upon as being the beacon of hope around
the world by many people, including Iranians, hoping the United States
would help them gain some equality with the British extracting oil from
Iran. In 1953, we started a violent coup in Iran.
What happened in 1979? Most of us would remember. In 1979, there was
a revolution in Iran. The United States embassy in Tehran was taken
over by the Revolutionary Guard, and all relationships with the United
States were broken. But it's interesting that the American embassy was
taken over in Tehran, the same embassy that planned the coup in 1953.
That was a mistake. We lit a slow fuse in 1953 that blew up in 1979.
What about the Soviet Union in the Middle East during the Cold War?
It's like a roller coaster ride. Sometimes they were allied with
certain Arab nations; sometimes they were not allied with certain
nations. Most Arab nations always distrusted the Soviet Union because
they were a country of atheists, and Arab nations were a country under
Islam.
How about Israel during the Cold War? It's interesting, and you ought
to read the book ``Treacherous Alliance'' by Trita Parsi, to understand
the nature of the relationship between Israel and Iran between 1948 and
1991. Israel and Iran had many enemies in common. They were both
enemies of the Soviet Union. They were both enemies of many Arab
states, especially Iraq

[[Page 6075]]

under Saddam Hussein. And as a result of that, because they had the
same enemies--and Iran is a Persian country, does not speak Arabic,
speaks Farsi, it is an Islamic State, but Israel and Iran had many
similar enemies. And so they had secret arrangements: Oil for
technology. That went on to 1991.
Russia invaded Afghanistan from 1980 and the war went on to just
about 1989. They call it Russia's Vietnam. Iran and Iraq went to war in
1980 to 1988. There were more people killed in the Iran-Iraq War than
all of the Americans killed in World War I, World War II, Korea, and
Vietnam. More people killed between 1980 and 1988 between two
neighboring states. The blood, the bitterness, the fear, remains to
this day.
1979, Egypt decided that they were going to recognize Israel, and
Egypt became more of an American ally than a Soviet ally. Jordan
followed not far behind.
What I'm trying to present to you is that the Middle East, in most of
recent history, has been a place of intrigue, a place of complexity,
and a place of violence. What do we see now today in the Middle East?
We know that in the three great religions faith is very important.
It's a part of everyone's life. The three great religions of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. And in many places in the Middle East, the
Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims live together. There is even
intermarriage. The children go to school, and when they learn about
their faith, they just move to different classrooms. When they learn
about math, they move back to the math classroom together or the
history classroom together. And this is throughout much of the Middle
East.
So there is a strong religious component. Faith is important in their
life. But in many communities, the three great religions live side by
side, and for the most part, harmoniously.
Oil is a vital component of their economic viability. We know that
and the world knows that. The oil exports from the Middle East are
extremely vital for their economy, and that's why we have not seen the
Gulf of Hormuz, where most of that oil comes out of, we have not seen
that, we have not seen any of those countries in the Middle East try to
shut that route out.
Today, as in the past, but especially today, the geopolitical balance
of power is fractured. What does that mean? That means, which direction
is the Middle East going to go?
Mr. Speaker, who is going to have more influence in the Middle East?
Will it be Saudi Arabia? Will it be Iran? Will it be Israel? Will it be
Russia? Will it be China? Will it be Europe? Will it be the United
States? Nobody knows exactly right now. But what we do know is the
Middle East has been a focus of America's attention since 9/11, an
absolute focus of America's attention mainly because we were attacked,
thousands of Americans were killed. We invaded Afghanistan to get rid
of the source of the attack, al Qaeda and the Taliban, and then we
subsequently invaded Iraq in which we eliminated a brutal dictator,
Saddam Hussein. We eliminated a potential for weapons of mass
destruction.
We are beginning and we have developed a working Iraqi Government.
Iraq has been the focus of America's attention, but how much
information do we know about this region, about Iraq?

{time} 2300

But again, I would recommend reading especially some of these books
to bring us up to date on some of that information.
The Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds, the main factions in Iraq, the
Shiites and the Sunnis are Muslim, the Kurds are Muslim. What is the
difference between the Shiites and the Kurds and the Muslims? Much of
it has to do with historic understanding about who would be inheriting
Muhammad's role in the Muslim faith. But the average Muslim, I will
tell you, whether they're a Sunni, a Shia or a Kurd, the average Muslim
wants to live their life in peace, wants human rights for themselves
and their family. They want to raise their family.
There is no bitter quarrel among the average Muslim about who's a
Sunni or a Shia, who is supposed to inherit the role of Muhammad. The
average Muslim wants to live their life in peace. They want human
rights. They want justice. They want the rule of law. They want freedom
of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression. Where the
trouble comes with the Islamic faith is with al Qaeda, with the
Taliban. Sometimes I would even say with the teachings of Wahhabi,
where they confine themselves to a certain monstrous certainty.
Iran, by the way, as do most other Arab countries, oppose the
teachings of al Qaeda. They oppose the teachings of Taliban. One of our
problems in the Middle East is to find allies, is to have a dialogue
with other countries. And I will tell you, when the Taliban took over
Afghanistan, just think about this, when the Taliban took over
Afghanistan, every country in the world pulled their embassy out except
Iran. Iran left its embassy in Kabul. And what did the Taliban soldiers
do? They went to the Iranian Embassy in Kabul, pulled out the 11
Iranians, and they shot them, the only embassy left in Kabul. What did
the Taliban do? They shot the Iranians. Who helped them? Al Qaeda. Is
Iran a friend of these Islamic extremists? No. Is Iran a friend of the
Taliban and al Qaeda? No. Is Iran open to discussion about these issues
to bring stability? The answer is yes.
There are many differences between these Arab countries, whether it's
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Qatar, Amman, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon,
you name it. They all have some differences in the way they look at
religion and the way they look at their leadership. They're either
democracies or they're monarchies or they're dictatorships, but what
they have in common is they want stability in that region.
The present crisis, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq is not World War
II. It is not like World War II. There are no munitions factories to
bomb anywhere in Iraq like there were in Germany and Japan. There are
no standing armies. There are no supply lines. We are fighting an
insurgency, a very multi-complex insurgency.
Where are we now? Why is there a sense of urgency to find a
resolution, an end to this conflict? We say there's 34,000 casualties.
What does that mean, 34,000 American casualties? That means there's
more than 4,000 young American soldiers dead. Thirty thousand wounded.
What does that mean? That means 30,000 Americans have come back that
have been brutally blown up and have lost limbs, been burned severely.
Their physical lives are, for the most part, ultimately and absolutely
changed. They will never be the same. With courage, they can pick up
the pieces of their life and move on with strong families.
There are tens of thousands who have post traumatic problems. I will
say that everyone that enters a war zone, 100 percent comes back with
post-traumatic stress. Now, what does that mean? That means that the
violence that they see, the violence and destruction of explosions, of
human bodies being torn to pieces, that image that they see and
experience never leaves their memory. They will always remember that.
That image never goes away. It just happens that your soldier can deal
with it effectively and become a productive citizen and take that image
in their mind and figure out how to conduct themselves in a normal
fashion so they can lead a good life, they can raise a family, they can
have a relationship, they can deal with it. Some cannot. Some are
psychologically scarred for a long time to come.
The war so far is costing a little over $600 billion. That's where we
are as far as the Treasury is concerned. The American people want a
conclusion to the conflict. How are we going to end the war in Iraq?
There is global dissent about our policy at present. There is a
struggling Iraqi Government. Are they ready to take over completely
with their politics, with their military, with their infrastructure,
with their economy? Not quite yet, they aren't. Some of our Arab
allies, including Saudi Arabia, our strongest ally in the Middle East,
have stated publicly that America's

[[Page 6076]]

war in Iraq is illegal. That is where we are at this point.
Can we leave Iraq, like some of our generals have suggested; drive
them to Basra, put them on boats and airplanes and bring them home?
Many people are suggesting that. But I would remind the American
people, Mr. Speaker, of something that General McCaffrey said. We left
Mogadishu abruptly, and it was chaos. If we abruptly leave Iraq, that
chaos will be multiplied by a thousand times.
When the French began to pull out of Vietnam, they left some military
there. And the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu has been retold many
times. If we leave Iraq under the present conditions and leave some
American troops there, how many should we leave? We don't want another
Dien Bien Phu for American soldiers in Iraq.
General Petraeus said there is no military solution in the war in
Iraq. Is there a political solution? What is the road ahead?
There is a great deal of talk about elections in October. We really
have to work toward that goal. What about a hydrocarbon law? Is there a
strong local police force? Is there a strong Iraqi national army? Is
there a stable government? How do we achieve these goals, and many
more? We don't achieve them with military power alone. That simply is
not going to work.
Let's take a look at the way forward. What do we do? Very complicated
situation. History, to a certain extent, can be a guiding post to avoid
certain obstacles that we don't anticipate, but let's take a look.
Iraq. The United States and the United States military is the
skeletal structure upon which the entire Iraqi society rests right now.
We are the structure that that government depends upon. If we pulled
out, to a large extent, at least for a time, hard to predict, there
would be chaos. So we are the skeletal structure upon which the entire
Iraqi society rests.
If we just focus on Iraq, though, we understand there is no long-term
military solution to its insurgency, there is no basic long-term
political solution if we just focus in on Iraq. The United States needs
to understand the region and how we impact the region and how we can be
interconnected with many of the problems that are there. And that will
also begin to help resolve the Iraqi question.
Many of the insurgents in Iraq still are al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Many of the recruiting tools to bring more people into that violent
extremist movement is the Palestinian-Israel question. So if the United
States, and we've already begun that, we've seen the Bush
Administration in Annapolis, we've seen some discussions in a number of
levels trying to resolve and reconcile the differences between the
different factions in Palestine and the different factions in Israel.
If the United States becomes an objective arbitrator with the
Palestinian-Israel question, we will reduce significantly the number of
people that are recruited into the violent Islamic community known as
al Qaeda.
Our discussions with Saudi Arabia, that we're not going to abandon
the region, Saudi Arabia still has some fear that Iraq could be an
Iranian satellite. And Saudi Arabia fears too much Iranian influence in
the region. So our discussions with Saudi Arabia are pretty important.
Our discussions with Iraq, obviously, can be very interesting,
especially with the Iranians, because the Iraqis have diplomatic
relations with the Iranians, and vice versa; Maliki has gone to Tehran,
Ahmadinejad has gone to Baghdad. So the Iraqis can see us as being a
little closer to their relationship as far as the Iranians are
concerned.
Now, the Iranians, obviously, we talked a little bit about the Iran-
Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988 and how many hundreds of
thousands of Iranians were killed. The Iranians fear the kind of
government that could do that again in Iraq.
The differences between the Ba'athist party, the Sunnis, the old
Saddam Hussein regime is could that possibly come back? So our
relationship, our open dialogue with the Iranians is pretty important.
No one in the Middle East wants too much Russian influence. They
remember the old Soviet Union, they remember Afghanistan. They simply
don't know if Russia has found its soul yet, so many in the Middle East
fear too much Russian influence. Many in the Middle East fear too much
Chinese influence because they know China is looking for resources,
especially oil.
So the U.S. involved in the Middle East in all these areas, including
Syria, including, I will say, Hamas and Hezbollah, it is America's
power that gives us the ability to negotiable, to dialogue, to
communicate, to find some way to talk to our allies, our friends, and
also our enemies in the Middle East. This is not Chamberlain giving
away Czechoslovakia. This is the United States, the most powerful
country in the world militarily, economically, and with our diplomats,
discussing the issues in the Middle East with our friends, our allies,
and our enemies, not giving up anything, certainly not giving up
territory, not giving in to threats, not giving in to proliferation of
nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. This is the United
States, with its power, negotiating its way to find a solution with our
strength.
Eisenhower said in the 1950s, and it's true today, the United States'
ability to be a super power, to be strong, is a three-legged stool, a
strong military, a strong intelligence system, and consensus and
dialogue. That's in our arsenal as well, diplomacy, trade, education,
technology, social exchanges, science exchanges, cultural exchanges.
That's the beacon, that's our strength.
So let's take a look at some ways to resolve this problem. We have
the military. People know we're strong. We have the best intelligence
in the world. We talked about a military surge about a year ago. Let's
take a look at a diplomatic surge, with present and former diplomats in
the United States covering the gauntlet in the Middle East to talk
about these kinds of reconciliation measures.
International support structure from the international community,
that has worked so well for many decades, and integrated security
alliance. We have it, we've had it for some time with NATO. We've had
it with SEATO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. We've had it
with Latin America, the Organization of American States. The Soviet
Union had it. They know how these integrated security alliances work.
We are fully aware of the Warsaw Pact, that gave those countries
participating a certain amount of strength.
An integrated economic system can help immensely. And I'm not saying
that you will have a NATO-type alliance among Middle Eastern countries,
but you can begin to discuss an integrated security alliance.

{time} 2315

Continue the current military draw-down of American troops that is
now ongoing strategically and in a responsible manner. Continue to work
toward a reconciliation among the different factions in the Shia
community, the Sunni community, and the Kurds. And we have seen
recently in Basra between Iraq, the United States, and the country of
Iran, the resolution to that violent conflict in Basra among the
different Shia factions. Reconciliation among those factions can work.
And let's take a quick look historically at how these alliances can
work. In 1941 the United States signed the Atlantic Charter with a
number of European countries. And in part how did that Atlantic Charter
work? What were some of the provisions? It said that all peoples have a
right to self-determination. Trade barriers were to be lowered. There
was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social
welfare, freedom from want and fear, disarmament of aggressor nations.
Why did we sign the Atlantic Charter actually in September of 1941?
Because we knew the war wasn't going to last forever and we knew that
we needed some agreement about sovereignty and human rights that we
could work toward. Those would be our goals.
That, I have to say as an aside, it was signed in 1941. In 1942, with
Ho Chi

[[Page 6077]]

Minh living under Japanese rule with the blessings of the French in
Indochina, Ho Chi Minh said, ``I hope that means that that Atlantic
Charter also includes Asians.'' And, unfortunately, he went on to say a
few years later, since the Atlantic Charter talked about sovereignty,
he said, ``I guess the Atlantic Charter did not include Asians.''
A couple of decades after the Atlantic Charter was written and
signed, there was something called the Helsinki Accords. The Helsinki
Declaration was signed in December, 1975, by many European countries,
including the Soviet Union, including Eastern Europe. And, by the way,
the Atlantic Charter was what led into the United Nations to help
secure sovereignty for countries, human rights, freedom of expression,
freedom of thought, and so on. In 1975, and I want to bring this out
for another particular reason and how it can apply today in the Middle
East, in 1975 a number of countries signed the Helsinki Declaration,
and what did that say in part? It said ``sovereign equality, respect
for the rights inherent in sovereignty.'' It said, ``refraining from
the threat of use of force.'' This helped trigger dialogue between the
differences of nations that had conflict. ``Peaceful settlements of
disputes.'' We didn't go to war with the Soviet Union. We didn't go to
war with East Germany. We didn't go to war with a number of other
conflicts around the world. ``Nonintervention in internal affairs.
Respect for human rights, including the freedom of thought. Equal
rights and self-determination of peoples. Fulfillment in good faith of
obligations under international law.''
Now, Brezhnev actually liked this. Premier Brezhnev of the Soviet
Union, Prime Minister Brezhnev, liked that because he thought that all
the land that the Soviet Union then occupied, he would be able to
occupy that territory forever. But what, in fact, did the Helsinki
Accords actually do to people around the world, Eastern Europe, and
Soviet Republics like the Ukraine? What did it do? It gave them
official permission to say what they felt, to say what they thought,
and the world would listen, and the world did listen. People living in
the Ukraine today, the former Soviet Union, will tell you that the
Helsinki Accords was that trigger, that slow fuse that led to their
self-determination, their sovereignty, their independence. The Atlantic
Charter, the Helsinki Accords.
What the United States can do in the Middle East is to remember those
words, bring about a Middle East summit in which there can be Middle
East accords, to bring about sovereignty, to bring about human rights,
to bring about the respect for international law, to bring about
respect for human thought. It can do for the Middle East what it did
for former Soviet Republics that are now independent, now free. And the
Ukraine is trying to get into the European Union. The Ukraine is trying
to get into NATO, as is Kosovo, as is Macedonia, former Soviet
Republics. View of the Helsinki Accords is what led to their ability to
become sovereign and free nations and develop democracy. What can
happen in the Middle East under these circumstances is the same thing.
Eisenhower talked to Khrushchev. Kennedy avoided war in Cuba. Nixon
talked to Mao Tse-tung. Knowledge is the solvent for danger. History is
the vast early warning system.
What is our policy now based on in the Middle East? Do we have a
definite direction? Are we sure about our power, our power to
influence, our power of trade, our power of human dignity? What is our
policy now in the Middle East?
Sam Rayburn, former Speaker, former Member of the House, the building
right across the road is named after him, the Rayburn Office Building,
where I work. What did Sam Rayburn say years ago that is actually
applicable today? ``Any mule can kick a barn door down, but it takes a
carpenter to build one.'' It takes a carpenter to build a barn.
We need more carpenters. We need more people who understand the
nature of conflict. We need more people that have a sense of urgency.
The soldiers in Iraq that are driving in convoys that actually in the
next few minutes might run over a land mine, those soldiers need to
know, those soldiers in Iraq who are stunningly competent about what
they do, need to know that we, the policymakers, are also stunningly
competent in how we developed a policy that they have to take out.
But I will tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, just don't wait for
the government to be competent. You're hoping they are competent.
You're hoping they know what they are doing. Turn your television off 2
hours every night and start trying to understand the nature and the
culture and the history and the intrigue and the complexity of the
violence in the Middle East so you're better able to understand it.
Rudyard Kipling lost his son in France a long time ago, and to soothe
his pain, he said, ``Why did young men die because old men lied?''
Today old people should talk before they send young people to die.
As we look back on the landscape of human tragedy, what and who in
every instance was the enemy? What caused the violence? What caused the
pain? What caused the despair? What caused the suffering? I will tell
you we have three enemies in the landscape of human tragedy: ignorance,
arrogance, and dogma. When you put those three things together, it
leads to this monstrous certainty, this oversimplification of what the
issues actually are, this monstrous certainty that comes out of al
Qaeda that I'm right and you're wrong, this monstrous certainty that
comes out of the Taliban, I'm right and you're wrong. A suicide bomber
should do his job, that's what God wants. We know that's not right. We
know that's wrong.
What's the antidote over history to ignorance, arrogance, and dogma?
Knowledge to replace ignorance, humility to replace arrogance, and
tolerance to replace dogma. We, as the policymakers, need to be
knowledgeable and informed so we are competent to create a policy that
will lead us out of this conflict, that will take us through the
violence and understand the nature of this conflict so a resolution can
come to the fore.
Mr. Speaker, I want to wish the American people well in their
assignment to read these books that will bring knowledge to the fore:
``Violent Politics'' by William Polk, ``Fiasco'' by Thomas Ricks, ``All
the Shah's Men'' by Steve Kinser, ``Treacherous Alliance'' by Trita
Parsi, ``The Battle For Peace'' by Tony Zinni, ``Why Vietnam?'' by
Archimedes Patti, and ``Human Options'' by Norman Cousins.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Pallone (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today.
Mr. Culberson (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today and the
balance of the week on account of official business.
Mr. LoBiondo (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for April 14 and up
until 6 p.m. today on account of visiting servicemen and women in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Mack (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for April 14 and the balance
of the week on account of an illness.

____________________

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. McNulty) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Giffords, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Scott of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Poe) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, April 22.

[[Page 6078]]

Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, April 22.
Mr. Sali, for 5 minutes, April 16.
Mr. Weller of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today and April 16.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 25 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 16, 2008,
at 10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

6078. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Ferric Citrate; Inert Ingredient;
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0479; FRL-8071-2] received March 31, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6079. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0303; FRL-8357-2] received April 3, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6080. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0426; FRL-8356-9] received April 3, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6081. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- S-Abscisic Acid, Temporary Exemption
From the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0092;
FRL-8357-4] received March 27, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6082. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0338; FRL-8356-7] received March 27, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6083. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Dicamba; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-HQ-
OPP-2007-0325; FRL-8356-6] received March 27, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6084. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2006-0678; FRL-8356-6] received March 27, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6085. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0308; FRL-8352-5] received February 29, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6086. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Bifenazate; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0302; FRL-8351-6] received February 29, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6087. A letter from the Directors, Congressional Budget
Office and Office of Management and Budget, transmitting a
joint report on the technical assumptions to be used in
preparing estimates of National Defense Function (050) fiscal
year 2009 outlay rates and prior year outlays, pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 226; to the Committee on the Budget.
6088. A letter from the Chairman, National Endowment for
the Arts and Member Federal Council on the Arts and the
Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the
transmitting the Federal Council on the Arts and the
Humanities' thirty-second annual report on the Arts and
Artifacts Indemnity Program for Fiscal Year 2007, pursuant to
20 U.S.C. 959(c); to the Committee on Education and Labor.
6089. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting as required by Sections
913(b)(2) and Section 902(g) of the Healthcare Research and
Quality Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-129), reports entitled ``The
National Healthcare Quality Report 2007'' (NHQR) and ''The
National Healthcare Disparities Report 2007'' (NHDR); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6090. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environment Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- National Perchloroethylene Air
Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155; FRL-8547-4] (RIN: 2060-AO52) received March 27,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
6091. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Federal Implementation Plan for the
Billings/Laurel, Montana, Sulfur Dioxide Area [EPA-R08-OAR-
2006-0098; FRL-8551-2] (RIN: 2008-AA01) received March 31,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
6092. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Delegation of New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the States of Arizona and Nevada [AZ and NV-
EPA-R09-OAR-2006-1014 FRL-8551-1] received March 31, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6093. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Delegation of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories;
State of Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0229; FRL-8550-9] received March 31, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6094. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Alabama: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [EPA-R04-RCRA-
2007-0992; FRL-8550-3] received March 31, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6095. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Final 8-hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards Designations for the Early Action
Compact Areas [EPA-HQ-2008-0006; FRL-8550-1] (RIN: 2060-AO83)
received March 31, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6096. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air
Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State
of Maryland; Control of Large Municipal Waste Combustor
(LMWC) Emissions from Existing Facilities [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-
MD-0209; FRL-8552-5] received April 3, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6097. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State
Implementation Plan; Updated Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions; Rescissions [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1155; FRL-8548-8]
received April 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6098. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Approval of Revisions
to the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Raleigh/Durham
and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Areas [EPA-R04-OAR-
2008-0036-200801(a); FRL-8551-9] received April 3, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6099. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Virginia: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [EPA-R03-RCRA-
2008-0256; FRL-8548-9] received March 27, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6100. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Revision to the California State
Implementation Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0970; FRL-8547-6] received March 27, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6101. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- NESHAP: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Standards for Hazardous Waste
Combustors; Amendments [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022 FRL-8549-4]
(RIN: 2050-AG35) received March 27, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6102. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation

[[Page 6079]]

of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri [EPA-R07-OAR-2008-
0103; FRL-8549-8] received March 27, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6103. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Missouri [EPA-R07-OAR-2008-
0100; FRL-8549-6] received March 27, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6104. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Utah: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions [EPA-R08-RCRA-
2006-0127; FRL-8538-1] received February 29, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
6105. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Partial Withdrawal of Direct Final
Rule Revising the California State Implementation Plan,
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District and San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-1074, FRL-8537-9] received February 29, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
6106. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Virginia;
Control of Particulate Matter from Pulp and Paper Mills;
Correction [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011; FRL-8537-6] received
February 29, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6107. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Maryland; Revised
Definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) [EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-1157; FRL-8532-4] received February 21, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
6108. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting the Commission's FY 2007 Annual
Report required by Section 203 of the Notification and
Federal Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, Pub.
L. 107-174; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6109. A letter from the Inspector General, U.S. House of
Representatives, transmitting the Inspector General's final
report on the Management Advisory review of the Exchange 2003
Implementation; to the Committee on House Administration.
6110. A letter from the Acting Administrator, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Federal
Aviation Administration's Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for
fiscal years 2009-2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. app.
2203(b)(1); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6111. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Administration's position on the budgeting for the Park River
at Grafton, North Dakota, flood damage reduction project; to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6112. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report entitled, ``Fundamental
Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts-II'' submitted
in accordance with Section 6016(e) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-
240, and Section 5117(b)(5) of the Transportation Equity Act
of the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the extension of those
provisions through FY 2007; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6113. A letter from the President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
transmitting Amtrak's Grant and Legislative Request for FY09,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 24315(b); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6114. A letter from the Board of Trustees, National
Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, transmitting the
National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust's annual
management report covering FY 2007, pursuant to 45 U.S.C.
231n Public Law 107-90, section 105; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6115. A letter from the Director, National Science
Foundation, transmitting the Foundation's Performance
Highlights for FY 2007; to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
6116. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Veterans'
Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting a copy
of the Report of the Chairman for FY 2007; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
6117. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs, transmitting a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``To
amend title 38, United States Code, to improve veterans'
health care benefits and for other purposes''; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
6118. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's biennial report
on evaluation, research and technical assistance activities
supported by ``The Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program''; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

Ms. CASTOR: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1107.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5715) to ensure continued availability of access to the
Federal student loan program for students and families (Rept.
110-590). 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. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Costello, Mr. Petri,
Mr. Duncan, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Filner,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Capuano, and Mr. George
Miller of California):
H.R. 5788. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
establish prohibitions against voice communications using a
mobile communications device on commercial airline flights,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
By Mr. WU (for himself, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Baird, and Mr.
Wilson of Ohio):
H.R. 5789. A bill to reauthorize the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) Program and the Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) Program, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Small Business, and in addition to the
Committee on Science and Technology, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FOSTER:
H.R. 5790. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the deduction for State and local real property
taxes whether or not the taxpayer itemizes other deductions,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. SHEA-PORTER (for herself and Mr. Latham):
H.R. 5791. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
clarify the effective date of active duty of members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces receiving an alert
order anticipating a call or order to active duty in support
of a contingency operation for purposes of entitlement to
medical and dental care as members of the Armed Forces on
active duty; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. MOORE of Kansas (for himself, Ms. Pryce of Ohio,
Mr. Campbell of California, and Mr. Klein of
Florida):
H.R. 5792. A bill to amend the Liability Risk Retention Act
of 1986 to increase insurance competition and available
coverage for consumers; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself, Mr.
Cannon, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Meeks of New York,
and Mr. Sensenbrenner):
H.R. 5793. A bill to restrict any State or local
jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell
phone services, providers, or property; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr.
Bachus, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Bartlett
of Maryland, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Broun of Georgia, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Campbell of
California, Mr. Carter, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Edwards, Mr. English of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Flake, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Goode, Mr.
Hall of Texas, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Herger, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr.
King of Iowa, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. McCaul
of Texas, Mr. McCotter, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Mack, Mrs.
Bono Mack, Mr. Marchant, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr.
Paul, Mr. Pence, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr.
Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Terry, Mr. Thornberry,
Mr. Weller, and Mr. Westmoreland):
H.R. 5794. A bill to provide for the periodic review of the
efficiency and public need for Federal agencies, to establish
a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the efficiency and
public need of such agencies, and to provide for the
abolishment of agencies for

[[Page 6080]]

which a public need does not exist; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. CAMPBELL of California:
H.R. 5795. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior
to notify units of local government when a Native American
group files a petition to become a federally recognized
Indian tribe and before the decision on the petition is made,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Ms. CLARKE:
H.R. 5796. A bill to provide funding for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation for mortgage foreclosure mitigation
activities; to the Committee on Appropriations.
By Mrs. DRAKE:
H.R. 5797. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide for a qualified Roth contribution program under the
Thrift Savings Plan; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
By Mr. HILL:
H.R. 5798. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit for care packages provided for
soldiers in combat zones; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas:
H.R. 5799. A bill to amend titles 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 Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KANJORSKI:
H.R. 5800. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas
(and products thereof) and to appropriate the proceeds for
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Appropriations, 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. LAMPSON (for himself, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Space,
Mr. Hill, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Melancon):
H.R. 5801. A bill to provide for direct access to
electronic tax return filing, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Davis of
Illinois):
H.R. 5802. A bill to amend the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal the
denial of food stamp eligibility of ex-offenders; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
By Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California:
H.R. 5803. A bill to direct the Election Assistance
Commission to establish a program to make grants to
participating States and units of local government which will
administer the regularly scheduled general election for
Federal office held in November 2008 for carrying out a
program to make backup paper ballots available in the case of
the failure of a voting system or voting equipment in the
election or some other emergency situation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. McDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Stark, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Doggett, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Crowley, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Ms.
DeLauro, Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Hare, Ms. Sutton, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Kagen, and Mr. Levin):
H.R. 5804. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to modify the rules relating to the treatment of
individuals as independent contractors or employees, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PEARCE:
H.R. 5805. A bill to establish a new solar energy future
for America through public-private partnership and energy
leasing for reliable and affordable energy for the American
people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. RUSH (for himself and Mr. Upton):
H.R. 5806. A bill to permit universal service support to
schools under the Communications Act of 1934 to be used for
enhanced emergency notification services; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
H.R. 5807. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for the distribution of a share of certain mineral
revenues, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNulty, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Honda):
H.R. 5808. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences to develop multidisciplinary research centers
regarding women's health and disease prevention, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNulty, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Honda):
H.R. 5809. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences to conduct and coordinate a research program on
hormone disruption, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Natural Resources, and Science and Technology, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ:
H.R. 5810. A bill to amend title V of the Social Security
Act to provide grants for school-based mentoring programs for
at risk teenage girls to prevent and reduce teen pregnancy,
and to provide student loan forgiveness for mentors
participating in such programs; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, 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. WAXMAN (for himself, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Hodes):
H.R. 5811. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to
require preservation of certain electronic records by Federal
agencies, to require a certification and reports relating to
Presidential records, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Paul, and Mr.
Cantor):
H.R. 5812. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to authorize waivers by the Commissioner of Social
Security of the 5-month waiting period for entitlement to
benefits based on disability in cases in which the
Commissioner determines that such waiting period would cause
undue hardship to terminally ill beneficiaries; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Upton, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Camp of
Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Walberg, Mr.
Knollenberg, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Stupak, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mrs. Miller of Michigan):
H. Con. Res. 327. Concurrent resolution congratulating and
saluting Focus: HOPE on its 40th anniversary and for its
remarkable commitment and contributions to Detroit, the State
of Michigan, and the United States; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Capps,
Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Loebsack, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Nadler, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Rothman, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr.
Sires, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Towns,
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Wexler, and
Ms. Woolsey):
H. Con. Res. 328. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of the National Day of Silence with respect
to anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender name-calling,
bullying, and harassment faced by individuals in schools; to
the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SHAYS (for himself and Mr. Reichert):
H. Res. 1108. A resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that future Iraq reconstruction
should be paid for by the Government of Iraq; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. SIRES:
H. Res. 1109. A resolution honoring the memory of Dith Pran
by remembering his life's work and continuing to acknowledge

[[Page 6081]]

and remember the victims of genocides that have taken place
around the globe; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 25: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.
H.R. 351: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 406: Mr. Buyer, Mr. Coble, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr.
Doolittle, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Royce, Mr.
Shuster, and Mr. Turner.
H.R. 471: Mr. LoBiondo, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Keller, and Mr.
Hinojosa.
H.R. 510: Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Wittman of Virginia, Mr.
Pearce, and Mr. Sullivan.
H.R. 643: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 657: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 661: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 688: Mr. Jones of North Carolina and Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 728: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 919: Ms. Foxx.
H.R. 953: Ms. Foxx.
H.R. 981: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 1043: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 1050: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1056: Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 1057: Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 1076: Mr. Davis of Kentucky and Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1185: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 1190: Mr. Towns and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 1228: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1293: Mr. Akin.
H.R. 1303: Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 1380: Mrs. Bono Mack.
H.R. 1524: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Castle, Mr. Hare,
Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Walberg.
H.R. 1540: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 1707: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1742: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Lynch, Mrs.
Napolitano, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 1776: Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Loebsack, and Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 1843: Mr. Blunt and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1884: Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Franks of
Arizona, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas,
Mr. Hill, and Mr. Heller.
H.R. 1921: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1932: Mr. Tiberi and Mr. David Davis of Tennessee.
H.R. 1983: Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 2188: Mr. Gerlach and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 2267: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 2329: Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Welch
of Vermont, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2332: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Young of Alaska,
and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 2343: Mr. Kennedy.
H.R. 2371: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Ross, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Towns, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Altmire, and Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 2380: Mr. Kagen and Mr. Hobson.
H.R. 2421: Ms. Tsongas.
H.R. 2458: Mr. Brady of Texas.
H.R. 2593: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Sutton, and Mr. Honda.
H.R. 2676: Mr. Platts and Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 2686: Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Pomeroy.
H.R. 2892: Ms. Lee and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2976: Mr. Cohen and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3054: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 3149: Mr. Carter.
H.R. 3189: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 3463: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3543: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 3544: Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Hill, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Cramer.
H.R. 3616: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 3642: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 3652: Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr.
Oberstar.
H.R. 3654: Mr. Carson and Mr. Hill.
H.R. 3658: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3660: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 3728: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Fattah, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3797: Mr. Kind.
H.R. 3818: Mr. Latta and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 3886: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 3981: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 4044: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 4061: Mr. Marshall.
H.R. 4093: Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 4126: Mr. McKeon, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mrs.
Jones of Ohio, and Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 4188: Mr. Honda and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 4204: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 4236: Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H.R. 4279: Ms. Watson.
H.R. 4310: Mr. Hare.
H.R. 4651: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 4775: Mrs. Maloney of New York and Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 4838: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 4926: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 4927: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 4930: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 4934: Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
H.R. 4987: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 5032: Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Alexander,
Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Pickering, and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 5057: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 5131: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 5174: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 5176: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 5223: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Hare.
H.R. 5236: Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 5315: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 5441: Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Mica.
H.R. 5443: Mr. Fossella.
H.R. 5445: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Kline of Minnesota.
H.R. 5447: Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Honda, Mr. Lincoln Davis of
Tennessee, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and Mr.
Berman.
H.R. 5450: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 5461: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 5466: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 5473: Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Markey, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Hodes, Ms. Giffords, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Braley of Iowa, Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr.
Emanuel, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Carson.
H.R. 5481: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 5488: Mr. McDermott and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 5490: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.
H.R. 5515: Mr. Gohmert.
H.R. 5546: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 5561: Ms. Herseth Sandlin and Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 5585: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 5591: Mr. Souder, Mr. Walberg, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 5595: Mr. Souder, Mr. Carson, Mr. English of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Hare.
H.R. 5596: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Bilbray,
and Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 5609: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 5611: Mr. Platts and Mr. Akin.
H.R. 5613: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Klein of Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr.
Melancon, Mr. Rush, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Baca, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Courtney, and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 5627: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shuler, Mrs. Miller of
Michigan, Mr. Pence, Mr. Kuhl of New York, and Mr.
Knollenberg.
H.R. 5629: Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 5642: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California and Mr.
Gohmert.
H.R. 5646: Mr. Kingston, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Linder, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Akin, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Marchant,
Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Feeney.
H.R. 5659: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 5684: Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Space,
and Mr. Ross.
H.R. 5695: Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Heller, and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 5709: Mr. Boswell, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, and
Mrs. Boyda of Kansas.
H.R. 5712: Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Hodes, and
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
H.R. 5717: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 5731: Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Gary G. Miller
of California, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 5734: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Ellison, and Mr.
McGovern.
H.R. 5737: Mrs. Drake, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Buchanan.
H.R. 5740: Mr. Sires, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Carson,
Mr. Donnelly, and Mr. Feeney.
H.R. 5749: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Dingell, Mr.
Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 5752: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 5753: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 5759: Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 5762: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 5770: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 5775: Mr. Shadegg.
H. Con. Res. 70: Mr. Delahunt.
H. Con. Res. 195: Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Marchant, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Granger, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H. Con. Res. 223: Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H. Con. Res. 244: Mr. Hunter, Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mr.
Culberson, and Mr. Dicks.
H. Con. Res. 295: Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr.
Abercrombie, and Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H. Con. Res. 298: Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H. Con. Res. 322: Mr. Higgins, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Heller, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Costa,
Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Shays,
Mr.

[[Page 6082]]

Boozman, Mr. Sali, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Souder, Mr. Alexander,
Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Nunes.
H. Res. 353: Mr. Butterfield.
H. Res. 373: Ms. Tsongas.
H. Res. 887: Mr. McIntyre.
H. Res. 896: Mrs. Bono Mack.
H. Res. 1008: Mr. Wamp.
H. Res. 1011: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, and Ms. Eshoo.
H. Res. 1043: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Hare.
H. Res. 1069: Mr. Manzullo.
H. Res. 1091: Mr. Mica, and Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida.
H. Res. 1095: Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H. Res. 1096: Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Israel, Mr. Wu, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Baird, Mr. Taylor,
Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Matheson, and
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS

Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:

The amendment to be offered by Representative George Miller
of California or a designee to H.R. 5715, the Ensuring
Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or
9(f) of Rule XXI.

[[Page 6083]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. PHIL ENGLISH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speak, on rollcall No. 185, H.R.
3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007, I
would have voted in favor of the bill. I was held up in Pennsylvania
due to a car accident that shut down the PA Turnpike.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

____________________

HONORING AND RECOGNIZING THE DIOCESE OF ST. CLOUD CATHOLIC CHARITIES'
MEALS ON WHEELS PROGRAM

______

HON. MICHELE BACHMANN

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay honor to
the immense service the Meals on Wheels Association of America, MOWAA,
has made to the most vulnerable senior citizens of our Nation. The
MOWAA represents a number of member senior nutrition programs in each
State throughout the country, including several in Minnesota.
This organization represents America's commitment to community
service by restoring dignity and respect to all citizens, regardless of
race or religion. In addition, their annual March for Meals campaigns
have served as a platform to raise funds, create awareness, and
increase the number of volunteers to enhance the association and its
critical objectives.
I would particularly like to commend the Meals on Wheels program run
by Catholic Charities of the Diocese of St. Cloud. They provide hot,
nutritious meals and deliver them to frail, homebound seniors.
Since its humble beginnings in Great Britain during World War II and
the first American home-delivered meal program in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in January of 1954, Meals on Wheels has provided
vulnerable senior Americans with not only a warm meal, but also a warm
heart. There is nothing greater in life than a person's self-respect,
and the MOWAA has made that ideal a cornerstone of their mission and
organization.
Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize today the selfless
commitment of the Meals on Wheels Association of America and its
dedicated volunteers across the country. It is through their service
that we can be proud to call ourselves Americans.

____________________

CELEBRATING THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF WEBSTER, TEXAS

______

HON. NICK LAMPSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today in
celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the City of Webster, Texas.
Webster was incorporated on April 19th, 1958, almost 80 years after it
was settled by James W. Webster.
Since its settlement in 1879, Webster has enjoyed a rich and varied
history. Its temperate climate and the dedicated work of its residents
nursed the fledgling Texas rice industry, now a multimillion-dollar
economic success. In more recent years, Webster has become home for
much of the aerospace industry and serves as the gateway to Johnson
Space Center. Its population has blossomed, from a handful of ranching
settlers in 1879 to over 9000 residents.
Webster has also served as a vital connector for the Bay Area. Its
official emblem, an unbroken chain, reflects its role as a link in the
Bay Area economy and between the cities of Houston and Galveston, as
well as the Johnson Space Center. The emblem also symbolizes Webster's
constant progress and growth, a connection between the past and the
future.
As Webster enters its next 50 years, I have no doubt that it will
continue to achieve success. I am proud to celebrate with the residents
of Webster their legacy and hopes for the years ahead. I wish the City
of Webster a bright future and congratulate them on this golden
anniversary.

____________________

GAGE CARTER HERRINGTON

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Gage Carter
Herrington, 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 45, and by earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Gage has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Gage participated in the National Youth Leadership Training
in Boy Scouts of America. Gage is also a Brave in the Tribe of Mic-O-
Say.
Gage has also excelled academically, ranking 11th in his class of 201
at Lafayette High School. Gage participated in the National Geography
Bee at the State level, earned a double varsity letter on the debate
team, and earned medals at the Science Fair and Science Olympiad.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Gage Carter
Herrington for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE CLARION PUBLIC LIBRARY

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Clarion
Public Library on its 100th year anniversary. The Clarion Public
Library serves over 3,000 residents of Clarion, Iowa as well as
residents of the surrounding areas in Wright County.
In February 1907, the Clarion City Council voted to contribute $5,000
to erect and maintain a public library after Mr. Morgan Everts, a
pioneer of Webster City, Iowa, offered to supplement the project with a
$10,000 donation. The structure of the library was erected by F.F.
McManus at the contract price of $9,921, without a furnace or
furnishings, and was built in the same style of architecture as the
Carnegie libraries around the country. The building was opened to the
public in April 1908.
The 5,000 square-foot library contains a large basement where the
heating plant, store rooms and auditorium are located. A high flag-
staff is set in front of the building, designed to hold ``Old Glory,''
which was the gift of Captain Terrell.
From April 1908 to January 1913, Mrs. G.T. Eldridge served as the
first librarian and was subsequently followed by Mrs. Irving E. Nagle.
Mrs. Marrian Gannon was the longest serving head librarian from 1967 to
1996, and the current head librarian, Nola Waddingham, has served since
1996.
In 1984, a total remodeling of the library was completed. With a
grant from the Kinney-Lindstrom Fund and help from the city council,
the children's library was moved to the basement, an elevator was
installed, and a meeting room for cultural events was constructed.
Today the Clarion Library Board and the City of Clarion are raising
funds to expand and renovate this historic library.
Throughout the many years the Clarion Public Library staff has
strived to meet the needs of the people in the area by providing
excellent information and encouraging citizens to read. I congratulate
the Clarion Public Library on this historic anniversary. It is an honor
to represent Nola Waddingham, the library board of trustees, and all of
the Clarion Library staff in the United States Congress, and I wish the
Clarion Public Library continued success well into the future.

[[Page 6084]]

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO DAN McPARTLAND

______

HON. JON C. PORTER

of nevada

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today
to honor Dan McPartland by entering his name in the Congressional
Record, the official record of the proceedings and debates of the
United States Congress since 1873. Today I honor Dan McPartland, who is
retiring after 27 years of service to the Clark County School District
Department of Food Services.
Mr. McPartland has been a resident of southern Nevada since 1968.
Throughout his service, Dan has provided leadership and stability to a
vital department of southern Nevada's education system. During his time
as director of food services, Dan led numerous projects to effectively
feed and nourish Clark County students. Such projects included
technology upgrades in every school cafeteria networked to the main
food service office as well as the implementation of a strict nutrition
policy that regulated all foods sold in schools during business hours.
Mr. McPartland expanded the department to keep up with rapid growth and
maintained a financially sound budget while doing so. Dan was
recognized with the Golden Carrot in 2004 for his exceptional
innovation and leadership in promoting child health and nutrition
through school food service.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Dan McPartland. His dedication and
commitment to the students of Clark County is commendable and his
efforts have enriched countless lives. I congratulate Mr. McPartland on
his much deserved retirement and wish him all the best in his future
endeavors.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. THOMAS H. ALLEN

of maine

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on April 14, 2008, I was unavoidably absent
from the House due to a family illness.
If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote
No. 183, a motion by Mr. Ellsworth of Indiana to suspend the rules and
agree to the passage of H. Res. 886, a resolution expressing sympathy
to the victims and families of the tragic acts of violence in Colorado
Springs, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado.
I would have also voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 184, a motion by
Mr. Davis of Illinois to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of
H. Res. 994, a resolution expressing support for designation of a
National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day.
I would have also voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 185, a motion by
Mr. Braley of Iowa to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of
H.R. 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007.
I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the
appropriate place in the Record.

____________________

CONGRATULATING TAIWANESE PRESIDENT-ELECT MR. MA YING-JEOU

______

HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ma
Ying-jeou on his success in the March 22 presidential election in
Taiwan, as well as applaud the democratic process that led to his
election. The success of the fair and peaceful Taiwanese presidential
election and the transfer of power from one party to another
demonstrate that Taiwan is a genuine democracy and a shining example of
freedom for the rest of the region.
As Mr. Ma is inaugurated on May 20th, I look forward to continuing
the exceptional relationship between the United States and Taiwan.
Taiwan is one of America's strongest partners in the region and a true
friend of the United States. Similarly, I am pleased to know of Mr.
Ma's pledged support for strengthening ties with the U.S. and I am
confident that our relationship will grow stronger.
I also applaud the president-elect's initiatives to improve relations
between Taiwan and China through increased dialogues on proposals that
would greatly benefit the people of Taiwan and China. Increased
communication and commerce between the people of China and Taiwan will
greatly assist in reducing tensions in the region while allowing the
Chinese to see firsthand the success of democracy in Taiwan.
I rise today, Madam Speaker, to commend the democratic process that
led to the free and fair election of Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, whom I heartily
congratulate on his attainment of this high office.
I sincerely hope that the rest of the world has taken note of the
historic events that have transpired in these free and transparent
elections. May this democratic spirit reach far and wide and inspire a
desire to foster democracy all around the world. Again, I congratulate
Mr. Ma in his election and wish him the very best.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. PHIL ENGLISH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 184, H.
Res. 994, Expressing support for designation of a National Glanzmann's
Thrombasthenia Awareness Day, I would have voted in favor of the
resolution. I was held up in Pennsylvania due to a car accident that
shut down the PA Turnpike. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''

____________________

IN HONOR OF BRENNY TRANSPORTATION'S COMMITMENT TO OUR HOMELAND SECURITY

______

HON. MICHELE BACHMANN

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Todd and Joyce
Brenny, owners of Brenny's Transportation and Brenny Specialized in St.
Cloud, Minnesota, for their participation in the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's Highway Watch program. By dedicating the time and
effort of their drivers, Todd and Joyce Brenny are helping to keep our
Nation safe.
Highway Watch is a program through which truck drivers are trained to
spot suspicious activity while on the roads and to report it to a
national call center so that public safety officials can both address a
particular issue and detect early if a pattern is arising. Minnesota
was one of the first three states to join this program when it was
first started by the American Trucking Association, ATA, in 1998. Then
it was a safety awareness program, teaching drivers to report road
hazards and accidents.
Following 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security worked with ATA
to add an anti-terrorism component to the program's curriculum. Since
2004, about 800,000 drivers, State transportation workers, and toll
booth operators, including 9,921 drivers in Minnesota alone, have been
trained. That turns out to be a cost of about $31 per driver. In 2007,
more than 3,000 calls were logged as part of the program nationwide,
including 1,700 security-related calls.
All 60 of Brenny's drivers and office employees participate in
Highway Watch. They have taken a real interest in supporting our
efforts to keep our Nation safe and I commend them and all their fellow
trucking companies who take part in this program for their efforts.

____________________

LOPEZ SIBLINGS TO ALL COMPETE IN OLYMPIC GAMES

______

HON. NICK LAMPSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, this summer, the United States will be
sending three siblings to compete in the Olympic Games. This
outstanding feat has not occurred since 1904, and I am honored to
recognize these individuals from the Houston area: Steven Lopez, Mark
Anthony Lopez, and Diana Lopez.
Each of the three is an exceptional athlete and will be representing
the United States in the sport of taekwondo this summer. Steven Lopez
spent the majority of his life in his hometown of Sugar Land, Texas,
and is a two-time Olympic Gold Medalist and four-time world champion.
Mark Lopez was born in Houston, Texas, and is a recipient of three
World Championship Medals including a Gold Medal in 2005. Diana Lopez
is the youngest of the three and was also born in Houston, Texas, and
received a Gold Medal in 2005.

[[Page 6085]]

These extraordinary individuals deserve America's utmost appreciation
and support. I am proud to have such remarkable citizens in my
district, and I wish them the best in the 2008 Summer Olympics and in
the years ahead.

____________________

CORY S. ADAMS

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Cory Adams, 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 60, and by earning the most prestigious award of
Eagle Scout.
Cory has been very active with his troop, participating in many Scout
activities. Cory has shown an extraordinary commitment to Scouting as
evidenced by earning 45 merit badges. Cory is also a Brave in the Tribe
of Mic-O-Say.
Cory's Eagle Scout service project was placing two swinging benches
at the ponds located at Duncan park in Savannah, Missouri. Cory
performed the majority of the work, and supervised other Scouts,
friends and family that helped with the project. This project continued
the tradition of community service established by the Boy Scouts of
America.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Cory Adams
for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 182 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

____________________

QUESTIONS ABOUT DESIGN OF PROPOSED FLIGHT 93 MEMORIAL

______

HON. JIM RAMSTAD

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, Tom Burnett, Jr. was a true American
hero. All Americans owe Tom and the other passengers on United Flight
93 a deep debt of gratitude for their bravery on September 11, 2001.
Indeed, the Members of this body may owe their very lives to Tom
Burnett, Jr. and the other courageous passengers. Tom Burnett, Jr. grew
up in Bloomington, Minnesota, in the 3rd Congressional District, which
I am privileged to represent.
Tom was among the small group of passengers who confronted the
hijackers that fateful morning. Department of Defense officials believe
Flight 93 was headed for a target here in Washington, most likely the
White House or the Capitol.
Tom's father, Tom Burnett, Sr., has long-held and serious concerns
about the design of the Flight 93 Memorial Project proposed for the
site where the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
Madam Speaker, I would like to insert comments from Tom Burnett, Sr.,
regarding what he believes to be serious problems with the design of
the memorial to his beloved son and the other passengers. Here are Tom
Burnett, Sr.'s important concerns about the Flight 93 Memorial:

``I am the father of Tom Burnett, Jr., a passenger on
Flight 93 on 9-11-2001. Tom Jr. led the effort to take that
flight back from the hijackers, and he and 39 passengers and
crew almost succeeded.
``My son confronted a terrible moment of truth. Faced with
a plot against our nation, he and the other heroes of Flight
93 fought back, and at the cost of their lives, foiled that
plot to destroy the White House or the Capitol. Now it is
time for the rest of us to face our moment of truth. Flight
93 has been rehijacked, and I am requesting that, if you can,
demand that a proper investigation of the Memorial Project be
conducted.
``This was no accident. The Memorial Project held an open
design competition in time of war, inviting the entire world
to enter. Guess who joined in? That group of trees that sits
roughly in the position of the star on an Islamic flag is the
crash site. What do you think is being memorialized here?
``A second Islamic feature that I also protested when I
served on the Stage II jury is the minaret-like Tower of
Voices, formed in the shape of a crescent, with its top cut
at an angle so that its crescent arms reach up into the sky.
Upturned crescents are a standard mosque adornment in many
Muslim countries.
``Every iota of this original Crescent of Embrace design
remains completely intact in the so-called `redesign.' That
is why Congressman Tancredo asked the Park Service to scrap
the existing design entirely. Instead of getting rid of the
giant crescent as Tancredo demanded back in 2005, architect
Paul Murdoch only disguised it with a few surrounding trees.
``Also remaining are those 44 glass blocks on the flight
path. (There were 40 passengers and crew and four Islamic
terrorists on Flight 93.) The Memorial Project acknowledges
the 40 blocks inscribed with the names of my son and the
other heroes, and they acknowledge the three inscribed with
the 9/11 date, but they pretend not to know about this one:
the huge glass block that dedicates the entire site.
``When this 44th glass block is pointed out, Project
Partners say that it can't be counted with the other blocks
because it is not the same size. What? Because the capstone
to the terrorist memorializing block count is magnificent,
that is supposed to make it okay?
``For every Islamic or terrorist memorializing feature of
the crescent design, the Park Service has another equally
phony excuse.
``What do we have to do to convince those opponents that
the proposed Flight 93 Red Crescent still doesn't cut it? It
is terribly flawed and should be thrown out to begin the
quest for an entirely new design worthy of their efforts,
those heroic Americans who were on that plane that fateful
day.
``I was on the second jury in August, 2005, that approved
that design over my objections. I objected then, in August
2005, and I am still adamantly opposed today to a design that
is riddled with Islamic symbols.
``By consensus, the Stage II jury forwards this selection
to the partner (architect Paul Murdoch) with the full and
unqualified support of each juror, says the report that was
issued.
``No, to the contrary, the vote was not unanimous, it was 9
to 6, and we, the minority, had no veto power. This is my
effort to get back in the game.
``I don't want that design that has been redesigned several
times by its originator and a design committee. In addition
to the Red Crescent being a giant mosque, the proposed `Tower
of Voices' looks like an Islamic minaret.
``Millions of Americans and I find the `Red Crescent of
Embrace' an insult to my son and the others on Flight 93 who
engaged in a violent struggle to take that plane back from
the Islamic hijackers and were suddenly placed in the
vanguard of the war on terrorism. Facing unfathomable
choices, Tom was calm, clear headed, decisive and fearless. I
can only hope that in the years to come the rest of us live
up to the standard of heroism that he and others set on 9/11.
``What I am preeminently concerned about is what our
countrymen will feel and learn when they visit the site.
``The story, when properly presented, will honor and
reverberate in history. What those heroes accomplished for
their fellow Americans, and for the entire Western World.
``I would want them to feel the desperateness of those
aboard Flight 93 as they became aware of what was happening,
and their cold realization of what they had to do. I want
them to ask themselves, what would I have done had I been
aboard that flight? We know that in very little time the
passengers got out of their seats, and attempted to take back
the airplane.
``I do not want my son's name used anywhere on that
Memorial, which is an insult to him and the other passengers
and crew, and what is needed is a thorough, honest and
objective investigation of the process during its selection,
how and why.
``I am confused but undaunted by the attacks on me and
anybody else who is against this design centered around
Islamic symbolism.
``Those who have opposed me in many efforts to be heard
includes some of the victims family members (thankfully,
few), officials in the National Park Service, a few
newspapers and some others.
``The possibility of them prevailing to railroad the
acceptance of this flawed design worries me! But I am
undaunted in my attempt to start over, to scrap it, and get a
new design. That doesn't include a bow to the Islamic
fanatics.
``An investigation is needed to avoid a cataclysmic
mistake. It must be now, or else the flawed design could come
about. Let us get at the truth. Their stubborn persistence is
terribly misguided. Maybe well intentioned, but flawed in
telling me that I don't see what I see.
``Designer Paul Murdoch (and others) are engaging in
personal attacks on anyone opposed, including Alec Rawls who
has written widely damning the Memorial. His latest, a book,
``Crescent of Betrayal,'' gives a reasoned and thorough
explanation for scrapping it.

[[Page 6086]]

``I am suggesting that it is past time to start over with a
new design, one that will truly be worthy of those 40
heroes.''

Madam Speaker, may God bless Tom Burnett and his family. And may God
bless America and all the heroes like Tom who gave their lives to save
others on September 11.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO COMMISSIONER PAUL ELIZONDO, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL
OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

______

HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an
extraordinary person and a dynamic force within the Center for Health
Care Services community. Commissioner Paul Elizondo served with
distinction on the Center for Health Care Services Board of Directors
for 8 years. From 1988 until 1995 he served first as Board Secretary
and then he served two terms as the chairman of the board.
CHCS would not have been the same without the efforts of Paul
Elizondo. As chairman, he worked tirelessly, both internally and
externally, to improve the center's services to its clients. He
encouraged, funded, and pushed innovative programs in child and
adolescent mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and mental
retardation services.
During his tenure, the center rose to national prominence and he was
appointed to the Executive Board of the National Council of Community
Health Centers. I'm pleased to recognize his continuous dedication and
willingness to foster the growth of CHCS throughout the community so
patients might obtain more efficient access to treatment.
It is my honor to pay tribute to such a leader. He is an innovative
thinker who continuously took it upon himself to confront various
community issues with sound solutions.
Commissioner Paul Elizondo continues to keep track of the center's
activities and services. At the national, State, and local level he is
an omnipresent ``watchdog'' and advocate for the clients they serve.
Above all, he wholeheartedly believes in the center, its people, its
mission, and their ability to help the people they serve.
His hard work was much appreciated and along with others that know
him, I would like the rest of America to recognize his many
contributions. Our community is fortunate to have had such a devoted
leader.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. PHIL ENGLISH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 183, H.
Res. 886, expressing sympathy to the victims and families of the tragic
acts of violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado, I
would have voted ``yea.'' I was held up in Pennsylvania due to a car
accident that shut down the PA Turnpike.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

ANDREW B. CARROLL

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Andrew
Carroll, 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 60, and by earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Andrew has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Andrew has shown an extraordinary commitment to
scouting as evidenced by earning 62 merit badges. Andrew is also a
Brave in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say.
Andrew's Eagle Scout service project consisted of constructing and
placing two Martin Bird Houses at Messick Park in Savannah, Missouri.
Andrew supervised other scouts, friends and family that assisted with
this project. This project continues the long tradition of community
service established by the Boy Scouts of America.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Andrew
Carroll for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BERNIE BALTIC

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Bernie Baltic
of Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Baltic, who recently passed away, was a
tireless champion of liberty. His advocacy of applying the freedom
philosophy to the issues of the day was made all the more effective by
his voracious reading of both the classics of liberty and the latest
policy studies.
Any politician or bureaucrat at any level of government who
threatened individual liberty was sure to hear from Mr. Baltic. Mr.
Baltic also worked to educate and mobilize his fellow citizens in the
cause of liberty through writing letters to the editor, and by directly
challenging anti-liberty officials at forums such as city council
meetings. In addition to his own activities, Mr. Baltic generously
shared his support and counsel with numerous organizations that work to
advance the cause of liberty.
Perhaps Mr. Baltic's most lasting contribution to the freedom
movement came when then-president of the Advocates for Self Government
Marshall Fritz showed Mr. Baltic a computer game Mr. Fritz developed
that identified an individual's political philosophy based on responses
to 10 questions on economic issues and 10 questions on civil liberties.
Mr. Baltic, who was quite impressed with the chart, suggested that the
Advocates produce business-card sized versions of the graph and quiz.
The result was the ``World's Smallest Political Quiz,'' one of the
freedom movement's most recognized and effective outreach tools.
Bernie Baltic set an example for all those wishing to effectively
advance the cause of liberty. Madam Speaker, I salute Bernie Baltic for
his many contributions to the freedom movement and extend my
condolences to Mr. Baltic's family and friends.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably
absent yesterday afternoon, April 14, on very urgent business. Had I
been present for the three votes which occurred yesterday, I would have
voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 886, rollcall vote No. 183; I would have voted
``aye'' on H. Res. 994, rollcall vote No. 184; and I would have voted
``aye'' on H.R. 3548, rollcall vote No. 185.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHN W. DRUMMOND

______

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great
statesman, a tremendous public servant and a good friend. Senator John
W. Drummond will retire this year after serving in the South Carolina
General Assembly since 1965. His leadership will certainly be missed.
John W. Drummond was born in Greenwood, South Carolina, on September
29, 1919, to mill worker parents. He was the fourth of seven children
growing up a deeply religious, working-class family, whose values
shaped the man John was to become.
As a young man, John's family moved to the town of Ninety Six, where
he attended school until he graduated in 1937. With few options
available to him, John decided to join the military. He joined the
263rd South Carolina Coast Artillery Regiment, the equivalent of
today's National Guard, and was stationed in Charleston. By early 1941,
John earned the rank of Sergeant and he enjoyed military life.
Everything changed with the bombing of Pearl Harbor later that year.
John's regiment was federalized, and he was eager to see action in
the war. He took a paratroopers exam at the Citadel, hoping to change
his military assignment and get closer to the action. John scored so
well, he was encouraged to become a pilot and was sent to Randolph Air
Force Base in San Antonio for training. The skills he demonstrated in
flight training school led instructors to send John to

[[Page 6087]]

Tallahassee to become a bomber pilot. After training, he was inducted
into the 405th Bomber Group Unit of the 510th Fighter Squadron. His
skill as a bomber pilot earned him the nickname ``Ace.'' In September
1943, John's squadron was transferred from Florida back to his home
State of South Carolina and an air base in Walterboro.
His return home got John into some hot water. While out on a training
mission, John buzzed his hometown of Ninety Six. This forbidden
practice earned him a demotion in rank to 2nd Lieutenant and a winter
of sleeping out in a pup tent.
Finally in March 1944, the 510th received its orders to report to
Christchurch, England, to begin its service on the war front. By May,
John was flying reconnaissance and combat missions over the German-
occupied Normandy area of France. He rose to the rank of Captain and
was a fighter commander. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, John was in the midst
of the invasion protecting the ships that were attacking the beaches of
Normandy.
On July 29, 1944, John's plane was shot down by German anti-aircraft
fire, and he managed to escape the burning plane, although his
parachute didn't open fully due to his close proximity to the ground.
Although injured, John rolled into the bushes, but was soon captured by
German soldiers. He became a POW and was sent to a camp in Germany
where he remained in horrid conditions until May 13, 1945.
When he returned to the United States after his liberation, John
spent time recovering in a military hospital from severe malnutrition
and other ailments related to his time in the POW camp. Upon his return
to Ninety Six, John made good on a promise he had made to himself to
woo and marry an acquaintance, Holly Self, affectionately known as Ms.
Holly. The two married on June 12, 1947, and had three sons.
In 1946, John was officially discharged from the Air Force. He
decided to go into business for himself, and opened a donut shop--the
Golden Ring Bakery. He owned, managed and did all the work himself with
the help of just one employee until 1954. John then accepted an offer
from his father-in-law to become a manager at Greenwood Petroleum
Company. He showed a real talent for the oil business, growing and
expanding its operations. Later he inherited Greenwood Petroleum and
began Drummond Oil Company, making both very successful businesses.
On June 6, 1964, John announced his candidacy for the South Carolina
House of Representatives. He won his first election, and took his seat
in the General Assembly in January 1965. He immediately caught the
attention of the very powerful Speaker of the House, Sol Blatt, and he
became one of ``Sol's boys,'' which provided him invaluable tutelage
and political opportunities.
Just two years later, John challenged the incumbent Senator from
Greenwood over the issue of who should provide power to their rural
county. He, with the help of his ally Duke Power, won that contest, and
in January 1967, John became a South Carolina State Senator
representing Greenwood.
Senator Drummond came into office with high ideals and a mind to
shake up the status quo. His first effort was an attempt to eliminate
the seniority system which controlled the Senate. His bold move was
quickly thwarted by the Senate President Pro Tempore Edgar Brown.
During his 43 years in the General Assembly, Senator Drummond made
education his top priority. He was a staunch supporter of the Education
Finance Act of 1977, the Education Improvement Act of 1984, and the
Education Accountability Act of 1998. He was also a strong advocate for
the Home Rule Act of 1976, which allowed counties and municipalities
more autonomy.
Senator Drummond has always been a proponent of more transparency in
government. It was appropriate that his first committee chairmanship
was of the Senate Ethics Committee. Under his leadership, the Senate
passed the South Carolina Ethics Act of 1975, which established the
State Ethics Commission with oversight over financial disclosure,
campaign disclosure and conduct of elected officials. He was also a
leading voice to expand the Commission's authority with the passage of
the Ethics Reform Act of 1991, following the Operation Lost Trust
scandal.
Senator Drummond was also a key player in the restructuring of State
government. He served on the Commission on Government Restructuring,
which made numerous recommendations that were enacted into law in 1993.
In order to ensure passage of these reforms, Senator Drummond used his
role as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to threaten to
withhold the budget until the government restructuring package was
approved. His political maneuvering paid off, and the Restructuring Act
of 1993 passed with bipartisan support.
In 1996, Senator Drummond became the Senate President Pro Tempore, a
title which he earned through the seniority system he had sought to
dismantle as a young, independent-minded Freshman Senator. Although his
rogue tendencies mellowed over time, Senator Drummond's effectiveness
grew. In 2001, he became President Pro Tempore Emeritus when the
Republicans took control of the Senate, but he didn't succumb to the
pressure to switch parties as so many of his colleagues had.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me today in
celebrating the extraordinary career and life of South Carolina Senator
John Drummond, who I am proud to call one of my best friends in South
Carolina politics and government. He is a true public servant, from his
courageous service in World War II to his uncompromising representation
in the South Carolina General Assembly. He has always remained true to
the values instilled him growing up in the small community of Ninety
Six. His tremendous legacy is one that honors his humble beginnings and
speaks highly of his personal integrity. I commend John Drummond for
his statesmanship and his numerous contributions to South Carolina and
the Nation. I am proud to call him a friend.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE PLATTSBURGH STATE WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAM UPON WINNING
THE 2008 DIVISION III NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

______

HON. JOHN M. McHUGH

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the State
University of New York at Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh State) Lady
Cardinals upon winning the 2008 NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey
National Championship, their second consecutive national championship.
I am proud to represent the Lady Cardinals and the community of
Plattsburgh.
On March 22, 2008, Plattsburgh State won the Division III National
Championship when it defeated the Manhattanville College Lady Valiants
by a score of 3 to 2 at the Stafford Ice Arena in Plattsburgh, NY. The
Lady Cardinals seized the lead at 9:59 of the first period when Laurie
Bowler scored the first goal of the game. After the Valiants evened the
score just over a minute later, Stephanie Moberg and Captain Danielle
Blanchard combined on a beautiful goal, finished by Blanchard, to put
the Lady Cards back in the lead at 13:50. Forty-nine seconds later,
Amber Ellis scored the Cardinals third and the eventual game-winning
goal, which was assisted by Kate Fairfield and Brittany Meade.
Goaltender Danielle Beattie turned away 22 shots to win her 21st game
of the season.
Blanchard, Beattie, Captain Julie Devereux, Moberg, and Sharis Smith
were all named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team; Blanchard and Devereux
were also named to the AHCA All-American First Team. Blanchard, a
three-time All-American who scored a career-high 28 goals as part of a
48-point season, also earned the 2008 Laura Hurd Award, which is given
to the Nation's top player.
The Lady Cardinals were coached by head coach Kevin Houle, who won
the Division III Women's Ice Hockey Coach of the Year for the third
straight year and currently has the best career record (121-19-7; 847
winning percentage) among all active coaches in NCAA hockey. Other team
members included assistant coaches Chad Kemp and Erin O'Brien and
players Kristen Bond, Ainsley Brien, Assistant Captain Lindsay Brown,
Kara Buehler, Shay Bywater, Elise Campbell, Megan DiJulio, Helen
Giroux, Amanda Hoy, Tara Khan, Mandy Mackrell, Kayla McDougall, Steph
Moon, Claire O'Connor, and Sarah Samson.
Madam Speaker, it is an honor to have the opportunity to congratulate
the Plattsburgh State Lady Cardinals ice hockey team. Accordingly, I
now ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the entire Lady Cardinals
hockey team for their remarkable accomplishments this season.

[[Page 6088]]

____________________

EXTENSION OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT

______

HON. ZOE LOFGREN

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask my
colleagues to act swiftly to pass a strengthened and seamless extension
of the Research and Development Tax Credit.
The R&D tax credit expired at the end of last year, creating an
unacceptable degree of uncertainty for our country's most innovative
industries.
An investment in R&D is an investment in the U.S. economy. In 2003,
for example, U.S. companies invested $140.1 billion in domestic
research and development.
As we have seen in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, that investment has
strengthened our economy and led to remarkable technological
advancements.
At a time when our economy is shedding jobs, a swift extension of the
R&D tax credit makes abundant sense. More than 90% of the benefits of
the credit are attributable to salaries of workers performing U.S.-
based research.
A permanent extension of the credit would be ideal. Since its
inception in 1981, the R&D tax credit has been extended 12 times for
periods ranging from 5 years to 6 months.
Given the long time horizon for returns on R&D investments, this ad
hoc and piecemeal approach to extending the credit is problematic.
Nonetheless, the prospect of the credit lapsing altogether is even
more problematic. Given the intense global competition faced by our
most innovative industries, we cannot cede any more ground to those
countries that provide expansive, permanent R&D incentives to lure away
R&D investments.
Swift action on the R&D tax credit is critical to innovation centers
like the Silicon Valley and to the overall health of the U.S. economy.
We must act quickly and decisively to maintain and advance America's
place as a leader in innovation.

____________________

ZACHARY BEATTIE

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Zachary
Beattie, 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 60, and by earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Zachary has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Along with his 42 merit badges, Zach has earned the
World Heritage Award and the Mile Swim Award. Zach is also a Warrior in
the Tribe of Mic-O-Say.
In 2003, Zach earned the Shawn Burke High Adventure Scouting Award
and in 2005 he earned the Jeff Prewitt Scouting Spirit Award. Along
with scouts, Zach is active in many community and school activities.
Zach is also a member of Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Future
Teachers of America and National Honor Society.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Zachary
Beattie for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO COMMEMORATE THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF DR. KING'S ASSASSINATION

______

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark 40 years since the
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In doing so, I would like
to submit for the Record a statement from Ralph B. Everett, President
and CEO of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The
Joint Center is one of the nation's premier research and public policy
institutions and the only one whose work focuses primarily on issues of
particular concern to African Americans and other people of color.
``While the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Reverend Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. evokes deeply troubling memories, it also
serves as an important milestone in assessing the progress this nation
has made and how far we must yet go to transform America in the way
that Dr. King envisioned.
For many people, the passing of four decades has not diminished the
memory of how difficult and uncertain those times were. In my hometown
of Orangeburg, South Carolina, the tragic and untimely death of Dr.
King intensified the sense of despair and unease that many of us
already felt after the February 8, 1968, shooting by law enforcement
officers of three unarmed students, including my high school classmate
Delano Middleton, during a protest at South Carolina State College
against a segregated bowling alley. This became known as the Orangeburg
Massacre.
In those dark days we wondered, how would the dream survive without
Dr. King to lead us toward the Promised Land?
But history records that sadness and anxiety gave way to
determination and action. Dr. King's spirit continued to guide the
movement as African Americans began to concentrate on the everyday task
of translating hard won rights into representation and influence in our
system of governance in order to secure justice under the law, greater
opportunity and an America that lives up to its historic promise.
The Joint Center was founded for this purpose and played a critical
role in the ensuing progress. Today, we honor Dr. King for his bequest
of a legacy and a dream that did not die with him, but rather has
served as a lodestar for all that has been accomplished since the
tragic day of his assassination.
We also recognize there is much to be done--just as Dr. King did
when, in the wake of historic gains in civil and voting rights, he
sought to direct our attention to the need for fundamental changes in
the political and economic life of the nation, so that justice could
truly prevail and opportunity could flow to every American. On this day
and in his memory, let us commemorate Dr. King's vision and, at the
same time, invigorate ourselves with resolve and forbearance to make
his dream a reality from sea to shining sea.''
Madam Speaker, I ask you to join Ralph B. Everett, the Joint Center
for Political and Economic Studies, and me in honoring the great legacy
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As we celebrate the life of Dr. King, I
hope that we will be reminded to never be silent in the face of
injustices and inequities. I hope we will stand, as Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. stood, for what is right, and just for all.

____________________

ULTIMATE TEST OF A MORAL SOCIETY

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, according to GAO we are $5.3 trillion deep
in publicly held debt, and have an estimated $54.3 trillion in unfunded
promised benefits if we don't change our current course.
The Social Security and Medicare Trustees reports recently issued
only reinforce the dire condition of our fiscal health.
This is a fundamental issue for our country's economic future. It's
also a generational issue.
Pete Peterson's commentary in Newsweek last week ends by quoting
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who was instrumental in the
resistance movement against Nazism.
He said, ``The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world
it leaves to its children.''
I can't help but wonder what sort of future today's partisan
Washington is leaving generations to come. If we can come together--
both sides of the aisle--we can ensure that our children and
grandchildren have all the opportunity you and I have had.
The bipartisan Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission could give this country a
chance to get back on track--to rein in entitlement spending. If there
are other bipartisan ideas on how to address this issue, we should talk
about those too.
Doing nothing is simply not an option. I urge Congressional
leadership and Treasury Secretary Paulson to embrace the Cooper-Wolf
legislation.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BILL SHUSTER

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 183, 184, and 185 I was
not present because I was returning from a field hearing. Had I been
present I would have voted: ``yes''

[[Page 6089]]

on rollcall 183--H. Res. 886, ``yes'' on rollcall 184--H. Res. 994, and
``yes'' on rollcall 185--H.R. 3548.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DONALD DILLMAN

______

HON. MIKE PENCE

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Don
Dillman's remarkable life of selfless service. Inspired by his strong
Christian faith, he subordinated his personal struggle with diabetes to
his singular focus on the important volunteer work he did to improve
the community of Hope, Indiana. His admirable courage in the face of
adversity is something special that deserves honoring today on the
floor of the people's House.
Donald W. Dillman was born in Columbus, Indiana on March 8, 1940, to
Shirley ``Bud'' and Jessie Cecil Anderson Dillman. He was a graduate of
Hope High School, Class of 1957. On June 24, 1962, he married Rena
Blake, with whom he shared and celebrated forty-five years of marriage.
The ``unofficial mayor'' of Hope, Don helped organize countless civic
projects and community initiatives over the years ranging from new
playground equipment for the town square to launching the Hope Chamber
of Commerce. He even stepped in as an anonymous reporter covering Hope
Town Council meetings for the Hope Star Journal.
Don worked for decades to improve the community, serving in important
leadership positions. He served as President of Heritage of Hope for
over thirty-five years. He was a founder and board member of the
Hawcreek-Flatrock Endowment Fund, applying his fundraising prowess to
help it grow to over $225,000. Since the early 1970s, Don led the Hope
Heritage Days festival, which draws thousands to the town each fall.
Don was not just bold about fundraising for the community; he was
also bold about his faith. He served as a deacon at the First Baptist
Church of Hope for many years. But most of all his faith shone through
his commitment to the community of Hope, Indiana despite his own
physical illnesses.
Sadly, Don has passed away, but he leaves a strong legacy of personal
faith and selfless service that serve as a powerful example to all who
knew him. I offer my sincere condolences to his wife Rena, their sons
Jon and Darrell, and two grandchildren James and Jessica.

____________________

THE ENVIRONMENTAL HORMONE DISRUPTION ACT AND THE WOMEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AND DISEASE PREVENTION ACT

______

HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I'm proud to introduce the
Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental
Health and Disease Prevention Act.
Consider for a moment that a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer
is 1 in 7 today, compared to 1 in 22 in the 1940s--over half of the
cases are unexplained. And, over the last 30 years, the U.S. has seen a
steep rise in the occurrence of childhood cancers, testicular cancer,
juvenile diabetes, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities,
thyroid disorders, cognitive impairment, and autoimmune disorders.
Autism cases alone rose 210 percent between 1987 and 1998.
About 100,000 chemicals are registered for use in the United States.
However, 90 percent of these have never been fully tested for their
impact on human health. Scientists have found that exposure to these
synthetic chemicals disrupts hormone function and contributes to
increased incidences of diseases. We already know the tragic impact
that diethylstilbestrol, or DES, has had on the daughters of women who
took this anti-miscarriage drug prescribed until 1971.
Furthermore, a recent article in the Boston Globe highlighted the
possible link between obesity and exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), an
estrogen-like compound found in many common plastic objects.
While the evidence is mounting that there is an association between
these chemicals and hormone disruption, research remains limited,
particularly on the impact on women and on how long-term, low-dose
exposure to environmental pollutants impacts children at critical
stages of development.
A couple years ago, I participated in a study conducted by the
Environmental Working Group to find out what toxic substances I, in
particular, and Americans in general, have been exposed to throughout
our lives. My stunning test results showed literally hundreds of
chemicals pumping through my vital organs every day. These chemicals
include PCBs that were banned decades ago, as well as chemicals like
Teflon that are currently under Federal investigation.
The study also tested 10 newborn babies and found that on average,
each one had some 200 chemicals in their blood at the time of birth.
The fact that we have children coming into this world already polluted
and at the same time, do not know what the effects of that pollution
will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy
and immoral. We must test chemicals before they go onto the market, not
after they get into our bloodstreams.
For several years, I have called on Congress to enact legislation
that would allow NIH to expand its research on the impact of these
chemical pollutants on the health of women and children.
Once again, I am introducing two important bills that I hope will
advance this research--the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the
Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act. The
Environmental Hormone Disruption Act authorizes the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a comprehensive
program to research and educate the public on the health effects of
hormone-disrupting chemicals. The Women's Environmental Health and
Disease Prevention Act authorizes the NIEHS to establish
multidisciplinary research centers to investigate how environmental
factors may be related to women's health and disease prevention.
Increased investments in research now could prevent and treat a broad
range of diseases and disorders in future generations. I urge my
colleagues to support these bills today.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on
April 10, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the
following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 178, rollcall No. 179. rollcall
180, rollcall 181.
I would have noted ``nay'' on the following rollcall vote: rollcall
No. 182.

____________________

HONORING MATHEW DAVID BUCHHOLZ

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Mathew David
Buchholz 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 303, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Mathew has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Mathew has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Mathew
David Buchholz for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America
and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of
Eagle Scout.

____________________

CONGRATULATING JUNOT DIAZ FOR WINNING THE 2008 PULITZER PRIZE FOR
FICTION

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to praise and congratulate
Junot Diaz for winning the Pulitzer Prize for fiction on Monday, April
7, 2008, for his novel ``The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao.''
Junot Diaz was born in the Dominican Republic on December 31, 1968,
but has lived most of his life in New Jersey. As a child he loved
reading, and his favorite book of all time is ``Planet of the Apes.''
After high school, Junot attended the University of Rutgers

[[Page 6090]]

where he received his Bachelor's Degree in English in 1992, later
received his Master of Fine Arts at the University of Cornell in 1995,
where he decided to develop his passion for creative writing.
Junot Diaz first made a name for himself with his critically
acclaimed short story collection ``Drown'' in 1996, which featured the
short stories ``Ysrael'', and ``Drown''. In this novel he developed the
short stories into segments of the life of a Dominican immigrant
getting accustom to life in the United States. He also published a
translated version of ``Drown'' titled ``Negocios.'' This short story
novel made him a household name in the Dominican American communities
nationwide.
His latest novel, ``The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao'' has been
praised as the best novel of 2007 by Time Magazine, New York Magazine,
the Washington Post, and countless other newspaper publications. In
this novel he portrayed the story of a boy, who is fascinated with
comic books, who lives with a dysfunctional Dominican family, who
decide to move back home during the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo.
Junot Diaz is a wonderful example that anything you put your mind and
dedication to can be achieved in great depth. He has achieved goals
that many only dream about in a lifetime, at a tender age of 39. He
serves as a great role model for youth in the United States as evidence
the American dream can be achieved.

____________________

CONGRATULATING CLARENCE W. DUPNIK FOR 50 YEARS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICE TO THE TUCSON, ARIZONA, COMMUNITY

______

HON. ED PASTOR

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. PASTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of
America's finest, Clarence W. Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona,
who, this year, celebrates 50 years of law enforcement service to his
community in Tucson, Arizona. Sheriff Dupnik began his career in
February, 1958, as a Patrol Officer with the City of Tucson Police
Department. While there, he held various positions, rising to Major in
charge of Field Operations when he retired in January, 1977. From
there, he was appointed Chief Deputy Sheriff of the Pima County
Sheriffs Department, and was appointed Pima County Sheriff on February
19, 1980. Since that time, Sheriff Dupnik has been elected to 7
consecutive terms of office as Pima County Sheriff, a position in which
he remains today. Of his 50 years of law enforcement service, Clarence
Dupnik has served 31 years as Sheriff of Pima County, the 2nd largest
populated county in the States of Arizona, and the 7th largest county
in the nation--a remarkable achievement!
During his law enforcement career, Sheriff Dupnik has, among other
things:
Led the reduction of the per capital crime rate in Pima County to
levels equal to the City of Scottsdale and one-half the crime rate
within the City of Tucson.
Created the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Trafficking Interdiction
Squads (MANTIS).
Founded the Command Group of the Arizona Alliance Planning Committee,
a joint federal, state, and local law enforcement task force to
interdict and prevent the smuggling of illegal narcotics into Arizona
from Mexico.
Collaborated with the FBI to participate in the Joint Terrorism Task
Force, and was appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of the
FBI.
Pursued and secured funding from the Department of Homeland Security
for a helicopter to identify and interdict terrorists.
Introduced Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) in Pima County
Schools.
Founded the drug prevention group known as the Arizonans for a Drug-
Free Workplace, and serves as its Chairman.
Madam Speaker, the dedication and service of Clarence Dupnik to Pima
County during his 50 year law enforcement career is truly commendable
and worthy of note by this body. We thank Sheriff Dupnik for his long
and illustrious career, and wish him further success in the years to
come. We know that all of the years of public service have sacrificed
time from this family and personal matters, so we take this moment to
also thank and acknowledge his wife, Susie, and their families. The
Tucson community, and the state of Arizona as a whole, is a better
place because of you, my friend, Sheriff Dupnik.

____________________

IN HONOR OF SENATOR THURMAN G. ADAMS, JR., PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
DELAWARE STATE SENATE

______

HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

of delaware

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to recognize Senator Thurman G. Adams, Jr., who was elected by
his colleagues as Senate President Pro Tempore of the Delaware General
Assembly in January of 2003. Senator Adams is also the longest serving
member of the State Senate in Delaware history, as he has represented
the 19th Senate District of Sussex County since 1972, and I had the
personal pleasure of serving with him in the State Senate during my
last term as a Senator from 1972 to 1976 and again as Lt. Governor from
1981 to 1985. In addition, when I was Governor of Delaware from 1985 to
1993 I worked closely with Senator Adams on many issues.
During his career in public service, Senator Adams has held many
distinguished positions. Before becoming President Pro Tempore, he
served as Senate Majority Leader from 1999 to 2003. Senator Adams
serves on several standing committees, including the Agriculture
Committee, the Highways & Transportation Committee, and as longtime
Chairman of the Executive Committee. In this position he has overseen
the appointment of Chief Justices, Judges, cabinet secretaries and
individuals to other prominent positions within State Government. He
has worked for the interests of Delaware's farm community and expended
much effort toward such causes as improving roads and the quality of
Delaware's public education system. As a member of the Public Safety
Committee, Senator Adams sponsored legislation that established
Delaware's ``Enhanced 911'' emergency telephone system.
Senator Adams is a lifelong Delawarean, being born and raised in
Bridgeville, DE, in the very district that he now represents. After
graduating from Bridgeville High School, Senator Adams went on to earn
a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Education from the
University of Delaware. Senator Adams was married for almost 50 years
to Hilda McCabe Adams, who passed away in 2002. His world revolves
around family and his two daughters, Polly and Lynn, son Brent who
passed away, seven grandsons and four great-grandchildren mean the
world to him. He is the president of T.G. Adams & Sons, Inc., a feed
and grain company, and oversees a large farming business. Senator Adams
has served on various boards, including the Eastern Shore Grain Dealers
Association, of which he was president, chairman of the United
Methodist Church Administrative board, president of Harrington Raceway,
and as director of Baltimore Trust Company, Milford Memorial Hospital
and the Medical Center of Delaware. In addition to his public service,
Senator Adams devotes time to community outreach and charitable
projects through the Bridgeville Lions Club, several Shrine Clubs, and
numerous other organizations. Finally, if we could get his beloved
Baltimore Orioles back into the World Series I am certain Senator Adams
would consider his work complete, well at least for a moment or so.
I commend and thank Senator Thurman Adams for his innumerable
contributions and many years of admirable service to the State of
Delaware. I am confident that he will continue to serve the people of
Delaware with passion and excellence and I am very proud to call him my
friend.

____________________

HONORING MR. JOSEPH DELANEY FOR HIS YEARS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ON
STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK

______

HON. VITO FOSSELLA

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a pillar of
community service in my district, Mr. Joseph Delaney. The University of
Notre Dame Alumni Association officially recognizes 230 Alumni clubs
throughout the world. This includes the University of Notre Dame Alumni
Club of Staten Island, located in my Congressional District. For 10
years the Staten Island Club was led by a gentleman I rise to honor
today, Mr. Joseph Delaney.
During Joe's leadership, the Alumni Club became one of the most
altruistic, charity-oriented organizations on Staten Island. The
University of Notre Dame Alumni Association recognized the Staten
Island Club with its prestigious Charlie F. Lennon Award, recognizing
it as the most outstanding club in the entire network, in both 1999 and
2005. The club was

[[Page 6091]]

also recognized by the University Alumni Association as the most
outstanding club for their size of membership three times, in 1997,
2002, and 2005.
Joe's community service is not restricted solely to his leadership of
the Alumni Club. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks Joe arranged
for the University of Notre Dame Glee Club to visit Staten Island and
headline a fundraiser which raised $11,000 to help the families of
police and fire officers who died at the World Trade Center. On two
separate occasions Joe has coordinated fundraisers for the benefit of
St. Peter's Elementary School raising a total of $17,000 for the
school.
While no longer serving as the Club's President, Joe continues to
direct their annual Christmas Toy Drive which aides the Salvation Army,
The New York Foundling Hospital, and the Seaman's Society. He also
coordinates their Annual Thanksgiving Clothes Drive which provides
coats to the needy at Project Hospitality. One of Joe's greatest
charity successes has been building the annual ``Bread of Life Food
Drive.'' Through this drive the Alumni Club has donated over 800,000
food products to local needy families and individuals. The New York
City Council recognized Joe's efforts for the Food Drive and honored
him with an award in 1997.
Certainly, Joe Delaney is a giant of the Staten Island community
service community and I rise today to join the Notre Dame Alumni Club
in honoring Joe for his years of service to our community. The Alumni
Club will be honoring Joe at their annual ``Universal Notre Dame
Celebration'' on April 18th.
I rise to offer gratitude to Mr. Delaney on behalf of my constituents
on Staten Island, and to thank him for his years of community service.

____________________

CONGRATULATING MICHAEL J. MAHER ON RECEIVING THE MOTHER ROSALIE CLIFTON
HILL SERVICE AWARD

______

HON. DARRELL E. ISSA

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael J. Maher upon
his receipt of the University of San Diego's Mother Rosalie Clifton
Hill Service Award for 2008.
In honor of Mother Rosalie Clifton Hill, the University of San Diego
(USD) presents this award annually to an alumnus who personifies the
spirit and philosophy of the University. Such a person must exhibit
involvement, service enthusiasm and commitment well beyond what is
expected of an USD alumnus; demonstrate support of, and service to the
USD Alumni Association; and must exemplify in all aspects of his or her
life an incorporation of honesty, loyalty, integrity and fidelity.
Michael J. Maher epitomizes these above mentioned qualifications.
Graduating from the University of San Diego in 1970 with a bachelor's
degree in philosophy, Mr. Maher returned to San Diego in 1976 to begin
his 32-year professional career.
Maher has been a fervent supporter of the University of San Diego's
athletic programs. He has been instrumental in the continued success of
the University's golf program as well as the Torero Athletic Committee.
He has dedicated hundreds of hours of mentoring to student athletes.
His continued support of the University has positively influenced
associates and fellow alumni to become more involved.
Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in congratulating Michael
Maher upon his receipt of this esteemed honor.

____________________

HONORING CHUCK AND BOBBIE TERRELL

______

HON. JOE BACA

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, on May 16, 2008, the San Bernardino
community will gather to honor Chuck and Bobbie Terrell as they are
presented with the prestigious Golden Baton Award from the San
Bernardino Symphony Guild. In the Guild's 77 years of its existence,
this will only be the ninth time that this honor has been awarded. The
Guild is honoring them not only for their significant contribution to
the San Bernardino Symphony but also for their commitment and
dedication to the San Bernardino community as a whole for having spent
over 50 years in the field of education.
After honorably serving his country in the United States Marine
Corps, Chuck began his career by teaching social science at Azusa High
School in 1956. Over the next 10 years, he served as a teacher, a
counselor, the director of activities, the unit administrator, and
finally, as principal, starting in 1963. During those years, Bobbie
supported her husband by raising their children, and also stayed active
in her church, the Jr. Women's Club and the United Way. In addition to
performing his duties as principal, Chuck received his education
doctorate from the University of Southern California.
From 1966 to 1977, Chuck served as superintendent of schools for the
communities of Needles, Corona and Norco. Bobbie received her B.A. in
psychology from Cal State Fullerton in 1974, and began teaching
elementary school in Chino.
For the past 30 years the Terrells have made their home in San
Bernardino. Chuck became San Bernardino County Superintendent of
Schools in 1982 and worked in that capacity until his retirement in
1993. After receiving her master's degree in counseling from Cal State
San Bernardino, Bobbie worked in the Alvord School District as an
elementary counselor and a resource specialist. Bobbie eventually
earned her school psychologist's credential from Cal State San
Bernardino and became a school psychologist in the Jurupa Unified
School District until her retirement in 1993.
Their careers aside, I am sure the Terrells would say that their
greatest accomplishment is their family, which includes their children
Greg and Kathy, their six granddaughters and two great-grandchildren.
In retirement, the Terrells continue to serve their community as they
always have. Chuck still serves San Bernardino to this day, as
president of the board of trustees for the San Bernardino Community
College District. Bobbie has served as treasurer for the San Bernardino
Symphony Guild for the past 4 years. Active in the Presbyterian Church,
she has also served as treasurer at the presbytery level for 6 years.
Madam Speaker, it is my great honor to recognize the service,
sacrifice, and dedication of Chuck and Bobbie Terrell. Their impact on
our community over the years serves as a great reminder that a life
spent educating others is a life of a true patriot.

____________________

HONORING MORGAN WALKER MARTZ

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize, Morgan
Walker Martz 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 175, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Morgan has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Morgan has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Morgan
Walker Martz for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.

____________________

APRIL 15TH--TAX DAY

______

HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Speaker, once again the Tax Man cometh.
Today, April 15, is the day American taxpayers scramble to comply with
a tax code, over 67,000 pages long.
In 2007, individual taxpayers spent an estimated 3.18 billion hours
complying with the Federal income tax laws. Individuals spend $26.5
billion for tax software, tax preparers, postage, and other costs
related to filing their Federal income tax, while corporations spend
$156.5 billion to comply with Federal tax laws. Americans may send two
and a half trillion dollars to the IRS, but the cost to our economy is
much greater. Despite this, the majority party is forcing a $654
billion tax increase on the American people, the largest in American
history.
It's time to scrap the IRS and this oppressive tax code. It's time to
look at the fair tax or the flat tax as viable alternatives to our
overly burdensome tax code. It's time to stop punishing taxpayers and
pass fundamental tax reform.

[[Page 6092]]

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for
three rollcall votes on April 14th. If I had been present for those
votes, I would have voted as follows:
First, on rollcall No. 183, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res.
886, Expressing sympathy to the victims and families of the tragic acts
of violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado, as a
cosponsor of the resolution I would have voted ``yes.''
As the resolution reminds us all, on Sunday, December 9, 2007, a
troubled individual was responsible for killing several innocent people
and injuring others at, first, the Youth With a Mission facility in
Arvada and, a few hours later, at the New Life Church in the Colorado
Springs Area--where he was fatally shot by Jeanne Assam, a volunteer
private security guard.
The resolution rightly commends Ms. Assam and the quick response of
local first responders in the city of Arvada and in Jefferson County as
well as those in El Paso County and Colorado Springs who, assisted by
Federal authorities and medical professionals limited the danger to the
church and local community. And it offers the heartfelt condolences of
the House of Representatives to the victims and families of these
tragic acts of violence in Colorado and conveys our gratitude to Jeanne
Assam, city and county officials, as well as the police, fire, sheriff,
Federal authorities, and emergency medical teams whose quick response
saved lives.
Second, on rollcall No. 184, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res.
994, regarding National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day, I
would have voted ``yes.''
And, third, on rollcall No. 185, to suspend the rules and pass H.R.
3548, as amended, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act,
as a cosponsor of that measure I would have voted ``yes.''
H.R. 3548 requires Federal agencies to use plain language in
government documents related to obtaining a service or a benefit. It
responds to the fact that government documents often are complex and
difficult to understand, particularly when they are not written
clearly. To address this problem, President Clinton in 1998 issued a
memorandum that, in part, required Federal agencies to use plain
language in all documents that explain how to obtain a benefit or
service. However, while a few agencies still maintain plain language
programs, efforts to promote plain language have waned. H.R. 3548
defines plain language and requires agencies to use plain language in
any new document that explains how to obtain a service or a benefit or
that is relevant to obtaining a service or a benefit. The bill ensures
that many of the letters, forms, and other documents that people
receive from the government will be written in a clear, understandable
way. Under this bill, for example, the Social Security Administration
would be required to use plain language in letters that provide
beneficiaries information about Social Security.
I joined in cosponsoring the bill because I think it is important for
those of us in government to do more to communicate clearly with our
employers, the American people, and I hope that the Senate will join
the House in giving prompt approval to the legislation.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, during the week of February 25-29, 2008, I
was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 69-87.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 69, H.
Res. 978, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 70, H. Res. 930, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 71, H. Res. 944, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 74, H. Res. 974, ``yea''
on rollcall vote 75, H.R. 3521 the Sires of New Jersey Amendment,
``yea'' on rollcall vote 76, H.R. 3521 the Meek of Florida Amendment,
``yea'' on rollcall vote 81, H. Res. 1001, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 83,
H.R. 5351 on Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 84, H.R. 5351, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 85, S. 2272, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 86, H.R. 4454, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 87, H.R. 4454.
Madam Speaker, during the week of March 3-7, 2008, I was unavoidably
absent from rollcall votes 88-106.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 88,
H.R. 1143, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 89, H.R. 1311, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 90, H.R. 816, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 91, H.R. 4191, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 92, H. Con. Res. 278, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 93, H.
Res. 951, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 96, H. Res. 1014, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 97, H.R. 4774, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 98, H. Con. Res.
286, ``nay'' on rolicall vote 100, H.R. 1424 the Motion to Recommit
with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 101, H.R. 1424, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 102, H.R. 5400, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 104, H. Res.
1015, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 105, H.R. 2857 the Flake of Arizona
Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 106, H.R. 2857 the Inslee of
Washington Amendment.
Madam Speaker, during the week of March 10-14, 2008, I was
unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 108-145.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 108,
H. Res. 537, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 109, H.R. 3196, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 110, H.R. 4166, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 115, H. Res.
924, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 116, Motion, ``yea'' on rollcall vote
117, H.R. 2082, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 118, H. Res. 948, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 119, H. Res. 493, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 122, H. Res.
1031, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 130, H. Res. 1036, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 131, H.R. 5563, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 132, H. Con. Res. 316,
``yea'' on rollcall vote 133, H. Res. 936, ``yea'' on rollcall vote
134, S. 2733, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 137, H. Con. Res. 312 Kilpatrick
of Michigan Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 138, H. Con. Res. 312
Lee of California Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 140, H. Con. Res.
312 Ryan of Wisconsin Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 141, H. Con.
Res. 312, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 142, H. Res. 991, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 143, H. Res. 1041 On Ordering the Previous Question,
``yea'' on rollcall vote 144, H. Res. 1041 On Agreeing to the
Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 145, H.R. 3773.
Madam Speaker, during the week of March 31-April 4, 2008, I was
unavoidably absent from rolicall votes 147-160.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 147,
H.R. 3352, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 148, H.R. 2675, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 149, H. Con. Res. 302, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 150, H. Con. Res.
310, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 151, H. Res. 1005, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 152, H. Res. 1021, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 154, H. Res. 1065 On
Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 155, H. Res.
1065 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 156, H.R.
5501 Carson of Indiana Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 157, H.R.
5501 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote
158, H.R. 5501 On Passage, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 159, H.R. 4847 On
Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 160,
H.R. 4847 On Passage.
Madam Speaker, during the week of April 7-11, 2008, I was unavoidably
absent from rollcall votes 161-182.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 161,
H.J. Res. 70, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 162, H.R. 2464, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 163, S. 793, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 164, H. Res. 1084
On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 165, H.
Res. 1084 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 166,
H. Res. 1077, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 167, H.R. 2016 the Grijalva of
Arizona Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 168, H.R. 2016 the Bishop
of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 169, H.R. 2016 the Bishop
of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 170, H.R. 2016 the Bishop
of Utah Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 171, H.R. 2016 the Altmire
of Pennsylvania Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 172, H.R. 2016 the
Pearce of New Mexico Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 173, H.R. 2016
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 174,
H.R. 2016 On Passage, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 175, H.R. 2419, ``yea''
on rollcall vote 176, H.R. 5489, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177, H.R.
5472, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 179, H. Res. 1083, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 180, H. Res. 1038, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 181, H. Res. 1092,
``nay'' on rollcall vote 182, H.R. 2537 the Flake of Arizona Amendment.

____________________

THE DAILY 45: 23 CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN KILLED TO DATE

______

HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, today, Americans across the country are
engaging in a debate on whether or not they are bitter. Whether it's
bitterness about guns or bitterness about the economy.
Madam Speaker, this debate is a diversion from the real issue of the
plague of gun violence in our communities. I rise, today, to

[[Page 6093]]

mourn the gun-related deaths of far too many young people who were
students at Chicago's public schools. As of today, that number stands
at 23-all but two of those deaths was due to gun violence.
That's 23 young people who, in the pursuit of what other families
take for granted--getting an education--have to duck and cover just to
learn how to read and write.
Shannon Brown, 17, is the latest student to die from a gunshot.
Described by his younger brother, Keishawn, as a ``good big brother,''
Brown was a happy and responsible child who enjoyed school and hanging
out with his friends. He became the victim of gun violence following a
fist fight in his neighborhood.
Like a scene from a bad Hollywood movie, he stumbled toward his home,
while bleeding profusely, and collapsed on the stairs. Last week, law
enforcement captured his alleged assailant, the 26-year-old who Shannon
had bested in the fist fight.
When will Americans say ``enough is enough? Stop the killings!

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE ROTH TSP ACT OF 2008

______

HON. THELMA D. DRAKE

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Ms. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, today is tax day. This is a day when all
Americans are reminded of the federal government's treatment of their
hard-earned money, investments, and retirement savings. Our
servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan think about these issues as
well. I firmly believe it is time to improve the options at their
disposal to secure a comfortable retirement after their service to our
Nation.
Currently, two common options available in the private sector used as
retirement savings tools are the Individual Retirement Account (IRA)
and a 401(k), which is an employer-sponsored retirement plan where the
employer matches the employee's contributions up to a specified limit.
Both can be structured as either a ``Traditional'' or ``Roth'' plan.
Many are familiar with the Roth and Traditional IRA options as Roth
IRAs have been around since 1998. However, a Roth 401(k) is a fairly
new option that is similar to the Roth IRA in that it allows after-tax
contributions to fund tax-free retirement income.
The Roth 401(k) option was established as part of the Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and went into effect
on January 1, 2006. The Pension Protection Act of 2006, signed into law
by President Bush on August 17, 2006, makes the Roth 401(k) permanent,
removing the December 31, 2010 expiration date that previously was in
force.
Traditional IRA and 401(k) plans are funded through tax-deferred
contributions or ``before-tax'' contributions, which means the money
contributed is taken out of a person's pay before Federal and, in
almost all cases, state income taxes are withheld. Any earnings are
also tax-deferred. This means that an individual does not pay income
taxes on contributions and earnings in their IRA or 401(k) account
until their money is withdrawn, usually at retirement.
With a Roth plan, an individual does not receive the tax deduction
for their contribution, but all the money in the account grows tax-free
and can be withdrawn tax-free subject to certain criteria. For many,
the Roth is the better deal.
As such, more and more companies have started to offer Roth 401(k)s
since they were allowed to start doing so two years ago, and many firms
that don't yet provide this option are considering adding it in the
future.
However, in a glaring omission, this same option has not been
extended to the federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which is the federal
government's in-house 401(k) retirement savings plan for the federal
workforce and our men and women in uniform.
That is why today I have introduced the Roth TSP Act of 2008. This
bill will simply provide the same 401(k) options available in the
private sector to participants in the TSP. Currently, there are 3.9
million account holders in the TSP. These include civilians who are
employed by the U.S. Government and our military personnel.
Our men and women in uniform and the federal workforce may find the
option to structure their retirement plans as a Roth TSP to be a better
deal. My legislation will place the same options available in the
private sector at their disposal and provide another option when
considering their long term financial and retirement planning. Allowing
this option could provide greater growth potential and greater return
on investment for their retirement savings than under the traditional
TSP structure.
Consider the potential benefit to our military. If military personnel
serve in a combat zone as an enlisted person or as a warrant officer
for any part of a month, all military pay received for military service
in that month is excluded from their gross income. For commissioned
officers, the monthly exclusion is capped at the highest enlisted pay,
plus any hostile fire or imminent danger pay received. With a Roth TSP,
these individuals could earn this pay tax-free, grow their investment
in their Roth TSP, and then withdraw it all tax-free after age 59\1/2\,
having never been required to pay taxes on the invested money.
The men and women of our military worry about consequences on a day-
to-day basis that most Americans never even consider. The least we can
do in return is provide our service members with choices and options
that will allow them to plan for their future and help to ensure that
they never have to worry about a secure retirement.

____________________

CELEBRATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EDGE HILL FIRE COMPANY

______

HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate
the Edge Hill Fire Company on the celebration of their 100th
anniversary. Beginning in 1908 with just a few volunteers and hand
drawn equipment, the Edge Hill Fire Company has developed into a
modern, professional fire company.
In Philadelphia 272 years ago, Benjamin Franklin started the first
fire department in America. Franklin's brigade, comprised entirely of
volunteers, was dedicated to looking out for their neighbors. Today,
volunteers constitute 73 percent of all firefighters nationwide, and
Franklin's proud tradition of volunteerism is being continued by the
brave firefighters of Edge Hill Fire Company.
In 1909, following a serious fire in the village of Edge Hill, a few
residents spearheaded the effort to protect properties and lives in
their community against future destruction. By 1911, Edge Hill Fire
Company was able to purchase a fire truck, the first motorized
apparatus in Abington Township. In 1933, the company moved into a new
firehouse, built and funded largely by the company's volunteers. This
firehouse, located on Limekiln Pike at Cricket Avenue is still in use
today, but has been renovated to serve as a meeting hall. As the
community grew, so did the fire company, building a large addition in
1956 to include three truck bays, a service bay, hose tower, radio and
recreation room.
Today, the company continues their proud tradition of providing the
best service to the community. They, as the firefighters described by
Benjamin Franklin, still ``apply themselves with all vigilance and
resolution,'' as well as dedication and courage, to the protection of
their community in times of fire crises and as promoters of fire safety
and prevention.
Madam Speaker, once again I congratulate the members of the Edge Hill
Fire Company for their service, commitment, and sacrifice. I ask that
my colleagues join me in celebrating this milestone and wish the
dedicated firefighters another 100 years of success and safety.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALBERT P. BARRY

______

HON. JOHN P. MURTHA

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize the late Lt. Col. Albert P. Barry, USMC (Ret.). On December
2, 2007, Lt. Col. Barry passed away at his South Carolina home with his
loving wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor Barry, by his side. On January 16,
2008, he received full U.S. Marine Corps honors at Arlington National
Cemetery. The date was very special in that it would have been Al and
Liz's 20th wedding anniversary.
Madam Speaker, Al lived a full and courageous life even through his
battle with glioblastoma, terminal brain cancer. He refused to give up
and he and Liz filled their last year with hope, prayer, and as much
laughter as possible. Sustained by family and all those who knew him
well, Al's reaction was typical of the Marine within. He had been given
his ``orders''--by physicians this time--and he set out to ``beat it.''
He never complained--and never failed to be Al Barry.

[[Page 6094]]

Albert P. Barry was born on April 12, 1936, in New Haven,
Connecticut. He earned a Bachelor's Degree at Tufts University and a
Master's Degree at Syracuse University. In 1958, he joined the U.S.
Marine Corps, was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in December 1959,
and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1979. His 21-year active duty
service in the Marine Corps included tours with three Marine Divisions.
He served as a Marine Barracks Commanding Officer in the Personnel
Management and Assignment Office at Marine Corps Headquarters, and
completed his career in the Liaison Office to the United States Senate
from July 1975 until November 1979. He spent two tours in the Vietnam
War with duty as an Aerial Observer; he served as a Battery Commander
twice, a Battalion Operations Officer, an Assistant Regimental
Operations Officer, and a Marine Amphibious Unit Operations Officer and
Fire Support Coordinator. He received many notable personal decorations
during his military service, which include the Legion of Merit, the
Bronze Star with Combat ``V,'' the Air Medal, the Navy Commendation
Medal with the Combat ``V,'' the Navy Achievement Medal, the Combat
Action Ribbon, the Presidential Unit Citation, the Navy Unit Citation,
the Vietnam Staff Service Honor Medal and other campaign medals.
Following his U.S. Marine Corps Service, Mr. Barry served as a
Legislative Director in the U.S. Senate and was appointed in 1981 as
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. He
was awarded the Department of Defense Civilian Distinguished Service
Medal in 1985.
Mr. Barry's professional positions included Director of Legislative
Affairs for Sikorsky Aircraft, Director of Washington Operations for
Pneumo Abex Corporation, and Vice President of Washington Operations
for AAI Corporation. He was active in defense and industrial
associations, and officially retired in March of 2006.
Surviving family in addition to his wife, Elizabeth, include eight
children, two step-children, five sons-in-law, one daughter-in-law, and
eleven grandchildren. The children are Barbara Barry, Emily Helm, Paul
Barry, Kathleen Mullins, Eileen Macleay, Beatrice McMurrer, Sarah
Smith, Matthew Barry, Tanya Taylor, and Tom Taylor.
Madam Speaker, Lt. Col. Albert Barry was a true American Patriot. He
was a man who loved his family and did his duty to his country. He was
unselfish in service and he was a great friend to many, including
myself. I want to conclude my remarks by commending him for his life
well lived and I want to thank him for his many years of service in
helping to make our country great.

____________________

TAX DAY, APRIL 15TH

______

HON. JACKIE SPEIER

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I have long known that the war in Iraq was
costing our Nation far too much. But after less than a week here in
Washington, I'm sad to say, it is even worse than I thought. Today, on
the day millions of Americans pay their Federal income taxes, it is
disheartening to point out that the average American's total tax bill
pays for less than one half of one second of this unnecessary war.
At a time when hard-working, two-income families struggle to pay
their mortgages, when gas prices force small businesses to raise prices
on basic services and necessities, when support for college students
continues to decline and CEO salaries rise faster than a carnival
balloon, it is time to bring a dose of sanity to our tax laws.
Madam Speaker, today we took an important step by passing legislation
to deny government contracts to firms that are delinquent in tax
payments. No longer shall we allow corporations to reap war profits
while defrauding taxpayers by not paying their fair share.
We also took aim at the ridiculous practice of hiring outside
collection agencies to harass American taxpayers at a cost higher than
the money they take in. If America truly is the land of opportunity,
then that opportunity must extend to all members of the American
family. We cannot be nickel-and-diming hardworking families while
losing tens of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse in
questionable contracts awarded to politically-connected firms doing
business in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, I am new to this body, but I am not new to politics. I
understand that the only way anything gets done in the halls of power
is when someone stands up and insists on action. Today, on Tax Day, let
us make a promise to work toward ending this devastating and costly
war, providing middle-income tax relief and once and for all doing away
with subsidies for oil companies. Only then, can Americans start to
feel that Tax Day is something more than a shake-down of hard-working
families.

____________________

CBO COST ESTIMATE FOR H.R. 5715, THE ENSURING CONTINUED ACCESS TO
STUDENT LOANS ACT OF 2008

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, with respect to the
requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and with respect to requirements of 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the
House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, the Committee on Education and Labor received, subsequent
to the filing of the Committee report, the following estimate for H.R.
5715 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, April 15, 2008.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5715, the
Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah
Kalcevic.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine,
(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 5715--Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of
2008
Summary: H.R. 5715 would:
Alter repayment and eligibility terms on parent Loans for
Undergraduate Students (PLUS),
Increase the annual and aggregate borrowing limits on
unsubsidized loans,
Give the Department of Education temporary authority to
purchase guaranteed loans from private lenders, and
Clarify provisions relating to the lender-of-last-resort
program.
On balance, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would
increase direct spending by $320 million over the 2008-2013
period and by $390 million over the 2008-2018 period. The
bill would have no impact on revenues. CBO has not yet
completed an estimate of the impact of H.R. 5715 on
discretionary spending: implementing the bill would probably
increase costs for administering the federal student loan
programs.
H.R. 5715 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 5715 is shown in the following
table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 500 (education, training, employment, and social
services).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2008-2013 2008-2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Changes to PLUS Program:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. -35 -75 -75 -80 -85 -95 -100 -110 -115 -125 -135 -445 -1,030
Estimated Outlays....................................... -20 -55 -65 -70 -75 -85 -90 -95 -105 -110 -115 -370 -885
Raise Limits on Unsubsidized Loans:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. -90 -180 5 105 115 105 115 125 135 145 155 60 735
Estimated Outlays....................................... -50 -135 -45 65 100 100 100 110 115 125 135 35 620

[[Page 6095]]

Purchase of Guaranteed Loans:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 0 655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 655 655
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 655 655
Lender of Last Resort:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Estimated Outlays....................................... * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority:............................. -125 400 -70 25 30 10 15 15 20 20 20 270 360
Estimated Outlays....................................... -70 465 -100 -5 25 15 10 15 10 15 20 320 390
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: PLUS = Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, * = less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
5715 will be enacted before July 1, 2008. As required under
the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the costs of student
loans are estimated on a net-present-value basis.
Changes to PLUS program
The bill would make two changes to the PLUS program. First,
it would allow parents to defer payment on their PLUS loans
until six months after the dependent borrower leaves school.
Under current law, parents must begin repaying the loan 60
days after disbursement. CBO projects that approximately 10
percent of parent borrowers would take advantage of this
determent before repaying their loans. Interest rates on
parent loans range between 7.9 percent and 8.5 percent.
Because interest on these loans would accrue during
deferment, CB0 estimates this provision would decrease direct
spending by $370 million over the 2008-2013 period and by
$885 million over the 2008-2018 period.
In addition. H.R. 5715 would allow a lender to determine
that a potential PLUS borrower who is delinquent on a home
mortgage payment for fewer than 181 days (and might otherwise
be deemed not creditworthy) to quality for the PLUS program
due to extenuating circumstances. Based on information from
lenders and other groups, C130 estimates this provision would
have a negligible impact on direct spending.
Raise limits on unsubsidized loans
H.R. 5715 would increase the borrowing limits on
unsubsidized loans for all students by $2,000 per year and
raise aggregate borrowing limits to accommodate those
increases.
Based on data from the National Student Loan Data System
and the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and
about applicants for federal financial assistance. CBO
estimates these changes would increase the volume of
unsubsidized loans by more than $1 billion in fiscal year
2008; that increase would grow to more than $8 billion in
fiscal year 2018. CBO expects that the volume of loans made
to parents and graduate students in the PLUS program would
decrease, as these students and parents would shift some of
their borrowing to the unsubsidized loan program, which has a
lower interest rate. CBO estimates these changes would
increase direct spending by $35 million over the 2008-2013
period and by $620 million over the 2008-2018 period.
Purchase of guaranteed loans
The bill would grant the Department of Education the
authority to purchase guaranteed loans originated on or alter
October 1. 2003. from lenders in the Federal Family Education
Loan (FFEL,) program, if the Secretary determines that there
is insufficient capital available to meet the demand for
guaranteed loans. The Secretary would have full discretion
over the purchase price of the loans and the decision to buy.
This authority would expire on July 1, 2009.
Under the hill, the Secretary could purchase guaranteed
loans only after determining that such a purchase is in the
best interests of the United States and does not have a cost
to the government. C130 believes that the likelihood of
increased costs is greater than the likelihood of increased
savings if the Secretary purchases guaranteed loans for the
following reasons:
CBO expects that the volume of loans purchased by the
department would yard directly with the offer price. In
considering possible outcomes, higher prices would result in
higher volumes, and hence relatively large costs; outcomes
assuming lower prices would probably involve a lower volume
of loans purchased, and any savings under such scenarios
would he relatively small. Thus, the expected value of the
range of possible results would be a cost.
C130 expects that lenders would have better information
about the future profitability of each loan than the
Secretary and might he able to sell loans that are more
likely to enter default. and thus generate costs to the
government. Lenders would have an incentive to sell the loans
that are most likely to result in costs to the government,
Finally, CBO is unsure how the Secretary would balance the
need to be budget-neutral with a competing need to ensure
that the loan guarantee industry has sufficient capital to
make student loans for the upcoming school year.
For those reasons, we expect that allowing the Department
of Education to purchase guaranteed loans would likely
increase costs to the federal government. Based on
preliminary information from FEEL lenders, guaranty agencies,
and the Department of Education, CBO estimates this provision
could increase direct spending by $655 million in 2009. Those
costs could be higher or lower depending on what price the
Secretary sets for guarantee purchases.
Lender of last resort
H.R. 5715 also would clarity two provisions of the lender-
of-last-resort program, which provides loans to students who
otherwise are unable to obtain a loan under the regular loan
application process. First, it would specify that guaranty
agencies may carry out the functions of the lender-of-last-
resort program on a school-wide basis rather than an
individual borrower basis. CBO estimates that this provision
would have a negligible impact on direct spending.
Second. it would clarify that the Secretary of Education
has the authority to advance federal funds to guaranty
agencies serving as lenders of last resort who do not have
sufficient capital to originate guaranteed loans. CBO
estimates this provision would have no impact on direct
spending because the U.S. Department of Education has this
authority under current law and has published regulations
governing the lender-of-last-resort authority.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5715
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Deborah Kalcevic and
Justin Humphrey; Impact on state, local, and tribal
governments: Burke Doherty; Impact on the private sector:
Nabeel Alsalam.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.