[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Issue]
[Pages 10118-10359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 10118]]
SENATE--Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, who knows all things and from whom nothing is hidden;
limitless, timeless, and unchanging, You told us in James 4:2 that we
``have not because we ask not.'' So, Lord, today, we again ask You to
heal Senator Kennedy. We claim for him Your promise in Isaiah 53:5 that
``with Your stripes'' he can be healed.
Lord, we also ask that You will fill this Chamber with Your glory;
fill our minds with Your wisdom; fill our hearts with Your love. Guide
our Senators in their deliberations. Remind them that when they feel
overwhelmed, You have promised to give them Your wisdom. Lead them in
the way of peace and unity, as You bind them together to keep our
Nation strong.
We pray in Your holy Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. CARDIN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following the use of leader time, there will
be a period of morning business until 12 noon, with Senators permitted
to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the
first 30 minutes and the Republicans the next 30 minutes. The time from
11 a.m. until 12 noon today is reserved for tributes to former
President Lyndon B. Johnson, commemorating the centennial of his birth.
This afternoon, we expect to resume consideration of the House message
with respect to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The
speaking order during the time reserved for LBJ tributes will alternate
between the majority and the minority.
As a reminder, cloture was filed last night on amendment No. 4803
related to domestic funding. Under rule XXII, the filing deadline for
second-degree amendments is 1 hour prior to the cloture vote tomorrow.
Mr. President, we have second readings. But before getting to that,
we also are trying to work out a time agreement, even today. Under the
rule, the budget cannot be brought up until tomorrow afternoon at about
4 o'clock. But we can, by unanimous consent, move it to today. If we
can work something out with the Republicans today, we will do that.
Last night, Senator Conrad said he was going to confer with Senator
Judd Gregg, the ranking member of that committee, to see if there is a
way we can move to that and shorten the hours. Statutorily, it is a 10-
hour time limit. If we start on that tomorrow, the 10 hours would run
into the next day.
We know Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens are not going to be here
Friday. They are going to Senator Inouye's wedding. Senator Inouye is
getting married. Senator Stevens is his best man. So we need to try to
finish that before Friday morning.
In addition to that, we have the veto override on the farm bill we
need to complete. Now, on that there is no time limit. People can talk
however long they want. I would hope we would not have to spend a lot
of time on that bill. That bill has been debated about as much as
anything needs to be debated. It had 81 votes when it left this
Chamber. We would hope everyone would recognize we need to dispose of
this as quickly as possible. I hope we can get those two matters going.
I have also made a suggestion to the Republican leader--I spoke to
the floor staff last night, together with my floor staff--and there
will be a decision made by the majority and the Republicans, through
Senator McConnell and me, today to see if we can arrive at some way to
proceed reasonably to this emergency supplemental.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 3036 AND S. 3044
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a
second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the titles of
the bills for a second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3036) to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to
decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
A bill (S. 3044) to provide energy price relief and hold
oil companies and other entities accountable for their
actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other
purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with
respect to these bills en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the
bills will be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
BUDGET CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend, the
majority leader, we would be happy to work out a process by which we
could have the debate on the budget today. We would even be prepared to
have the vote on the budget today, but I understand that is
problematic.
Mr. REID. I think we could probably do that.
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, that is something we could probably work toward,
yes.
Mr. President, with regard to the budget, we have our differences in
the Senate, but there are a few ideas that have wide bipartisan
agreement. One is we need to rein in Federal spending, and another is
we need to do our part to ensure that middle-class families keep more
of the money they earn.
But the Democrats' latest budget shows we have a very different view
of what these ideas mean. Our friends on the other side said they
wanted to raise
[[Page 10119]]
taxes on the rich and keep taxes low for working families. But this
budget would provide for the average family a tax hike of $2,300 on
people earning as little as $31,000 a year and couples making $63,000 a
year. For a little perspective, first year schoolteachers in my
hometown earn $35,982, and I do not think they consider themselves
rich.
With rising gas prices and economic concerns, middle-class families
are tightening their belts. Yet this budget would take more money out
of the paychecks of these families to fill the Government's coffers. At
a time when all Americans are watching their spending, shouldn't
Washington be doing the same?
Not according to this budget, which does nothing to address
entitlement spending and sets a new record--a new record--for
nonemergency spending, topping the $1 trillion mark for the first time
in American history. That is not a record I think we should be
welcoming.
So I am a little confused as to why this budget is at odds with the
Democrats' promise of keeping taxes low for working families and
putting a stop to wasteful Washington spending.
It seems to me, if Congress was serious about letting Americans keep
more of the money they earn, we would make tax relief permanent. If we
were serious about reining in spending, we would pass a budget that
calls for responsible growth. Instead, we are on the verge of passing a
budget that goes in the opposite direction, contains the largest tax
hike in U.S. history, and sets a new record for spending.
American families cannot afford this budget, American job creators
cannot afford this budget, and our economy cannot afford this budget. I
urge all of our colleagues to protect the American family's budget by
voting against this budget when we have an opportunity to do that.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority
controlling the first 30 minutes, and the Republicans controlling the
next 30 minutes, with the time from 11 a.m. until 12 noon reserved for
Senators to make tributes to former President Lyndon B. Johnson, and
the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about two items
that are in the supplemental that has come from the House of
Representatives. I find it difficult to speak about either one, but
particularly the first one, without turning and looking behind me to
see the great champion of the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, leading this
debate and discussion.
The first item I want to talk about is how we help middle-class
families, working families who have lost their jobs, to be able to keep
their home, their dignity, and put food on the table while they look
for that next job.
No one has been a greater champion--no one--in this body or anywhere
in the country for working men and women, for folks who are working
hard every day to meet the American dream, than our own Senator Ted
Kennedy.
So as I speak today, I want to send my wishes, as my colleagues
have--all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and every part
of this building and this city--to say to Ted that we miss you and we
need you back and we are sending our love and our prayers to you and
Vicki and the entire family because we need you. While we are very
saddened about the news, we know--as you have championed and had such
great courage in fighting for those who have needed a voice, who have
needed a champion in the Senate--we know you will fight with the same
vigor, and we will be right there with you to do everything we can to
make sure you are back leading us, leading the charge.
I have stood on this floor many times with the great leader, the
great Senator from Massachusetts, to talk about what is happening to
families all across America. I represent a State with the highest
unemployment rate in the country. Those in Michigan who are seeing
their unemployment benefits expire, who are valiantly looking for work
every day, have been looking to us to help them extend that insurance
benefit until they can find a job.
We know there are 7.7 million people looking for work right now and
competing for about 4 million jobs. So I am proud of the fact that our
caucus, the Democratic caucus, has placed creating jobs at the top of
the list of the budget resolution we will be discussing and voting on
this week.
But in the meantime we have to do everything we can to support those
families. In the supplemental that has come over from the House, I am
very pleased they have included a greatly needed extension of
unemployment insurance benefits because the reality is we have lost,
since January, 260,000 good-paying American jobs, 260,000 middle-class
jobs--the jobs that pay the mortgage, put food on the table, send the
kids to college, buy clothing, pay for gas--which continues to grow
outrageously higher every day.
Part of our responsibility is to make sure those families receive the
insurance benefits they need while they pick up their lives, move in a
new direction, find work, so they can continue to have the American
dream.
Some of those families have members who are in Iraq or Afghanistan or
around the world serving us right now. Unfortunately, we have too many
families where one person--while we are grateful--is serving us in our
armed services and the other breadwinner in the family has, in fact,
lost their job. So there is a direct relationship between what we are
doing to support the unemployed to be able to continue to look for work
and to be able to care for their families in the meantime and what we
are doing on this supplemental.
Mr. President, there is another incredibly important piece of
supporting our troops that is in this legislation coming over from the
House of Representatives. Again, I hear the voice of Senator Kennedy
championing this as well in terms of making sure we are doing
everything possible for our troops, both when they are in harm's way
and when they are coming home, putting on a veterans cap and continuing
to live their lives in America.
I am very proud to have cosponsored the 21st century GI bill. Senator
Webb has been our champion. This is bipartisan legislation. Today's
veterans deserve the same opportunities and thanks that have been given
to earlier generations.
This bipartisan bill has overwhelming support in both the Senate and
in the House. Veterans service organizations and millions of veterans
and Active servicemembers have raised their voices in support of this
legislation.
I don't understand how anyone could fully support our troops by fully
funding the needs of our troops and then oppose the GI bill. Full
funding for our troops really does include the GI bill. That is what
this is all about: making sure we are keeping our promises. The men and
women who sign up, who are overseas now, who are in harm's way, who
have lost limbs, who come home with post-traumatic stress syndrome,
those who are willing to put their lives on the line for us expect us
to keep our promises.
I am proud of the fact that our Senate Democratic majority made fully
funding veterans health care a top priority when we came into the
majority last year. We kept that promise. This is the first year since
this war started that we have met the numbers the veterans
organizations say are needed to be able to provide health care. This is
[[Page 10120]]
the second piece we are committed to achieving and making sure we have
a 21st century GI bill fit for the brave women and men who are serving
us today.
Last week, as chair of our Steering and Outreach Committee, I was
able to join 23 other members of our caucus, all of our leadership on
the majority side, and we met with 21 members from veterans service
organizations who were unanimous in supporting not only the GI bill
that is included here, that has come from the House, that we so
strongly support, but in saying this should not be a partisan issue,
this should not be a political issue, this is the right thing to do. It
is the right thing to do. It needs to be done for the right reasons. We
owe it to our veterans to pass this. It is a critical part of what is
in front of us. It is essential we make sure that when we leave here,
we can hold our heads high and say we have provided full funding for
our troops by funding the GI bill and including it in this legislation.
This bill will pay for qualified veterans to attend any public
university in the Nation. If a veteran chooses to attend a private
school, the bill would also allow that to happen. It would pay tuition
up to the amount of the most expensive public school in the State, so
every choice would be available for our veterans. Under the bill,
private contributions would be matched by the Federal Government. There
would be sufficient funding for desperately needed books. The costs go
up every year. I can attest to that, having put two children through
college and seen the incredible expense for books alone, as well as
living expenses. Those things would be covered as well. We need to do
this because when our veterans get a good college education, all of
society benefits. Their family benefits, the community benefits, the
country benefits.
Providing a college education for veterans is very important for our
economy. World War II provided a great example of how the GI bill made
it possible for our greatest generation to get an education, find good
jobs, buy a home, contribute to the American economy, and raise their
families.
I can speak to that directly. My father was in World War II. He was
in the Navy. He came home as a veteran. Because of the GI bill, he was
able to get an education, to be a small business owner, to raise a
family--which I was very proud to be a part of--to send his kids to
college, and to make sure we had what we needed to be able to live our
American dream. It was the GI bill after World War II that gave my dad
a chance. And through him and through that commitment to my father and
to our family, it gave me a chance to be here today as well.
Today's veterans have served our country with the same honor and the
same courage as those in World War II. They deserve the same benefits.
They deserve the same opportunities, the same chance to shape their
futures, the future of their communities, and the future of the
American economy.
I also support this bill because it treats our Active-Duty Guard and
Reserve Forces the same way through their wartime service. This is
especially important now, as we know, as the Guard and Reserve take on
a greater and greater share of the combat tours in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It is no less important that Guard and Reserve members
often return home to communities that don't have the same resources as
the Active-Duty servicemembers have on base. So making sure our Guard
and Reserve can attend college, can get an education, the skills they
need to be successful, will help ease their transition into civilian
life.
I stand with those who are supporting our brave men and women in the
armed services and those who have served in the global war on terror.
This bill is long overdue and should be enacted right now. That is what
21 veterans service organizations have said to us, and millions of
veterans across the country. We have a duty to give our veterans what
they deserve. They have offered the greatest sacrifice and should be
given a chance for a solid education in these competitive times to
become successful after their military service is done.
So, like the rest of the supplemental, this is full funding for our
troops. It is full funding for our troops. We need to make sure they
have what they need, not just on the battlefield but when they return
home. We have kept the promise on health care, and our Senate
Democratic majority is committed to continue to do that every year.
We have also been committed and are very pleased that the House sent
to us a GI bill that we have been working on with leaders in our
caucus, including Senator Webb and certainly our leader, Senator Reid,
and many others, to make sure we keep the rest of the promise. We need
a modern GI bill that fits what is happening for our veterans around
the world, to make sure Guard and Reserve are treated with the same
dignity and have the same opportunities as our Active-Duty personnel.
As we debate this supplemental, I sincerely hope we will not leave
this Chamber without making sure that full funding for our troops
includes the passage of this greatly needed GI bill.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two important
domestic priorities that are funded in the Senate's emergency
supplemental. Those two priorities are the Secure Rural Schools and
JAG/Byrne funding. These programs are critically important to Montana
and rural America. I hope my colleagues continue to support them.
Last year, a 1-year extension of the Secure Rural School and Self-
Determination Act was included in the emergency supplemental, giving
much relief to rural counties.
We also narrowly lost the opportunity to pass a 5-year
reauthorization during the debate on last year's energy bill. But now,
today, we have the same opportunity to provide temporary relief while
we work to provide the longer term funding solutions that our counties
and schools deserve.
Why is this so important? Because county payments assist 600 rural
counties and 4,400 schools in 42 States.
A majority of the counties in my State of Montana receive benefits
from this program. Without an extension, these communities will suffer,
and schoolteachers and county workers will be laid off.
Less money for rural schools means less opportunity for our rural
students, lower teacher pay, bigger classroom size, fewer activities,
and students who start to fall behind. Rural America's students deserve
the same opportunities as their urban counterparts, and this program
helps them to keep pace.
Fewer dollars for the counties mean higher local property taxes,
poorer roads, and local public work projects that do not get done.
Overall, rural economies will suffer in a big way.
In the West, we are rich in public lands. One-third of Montana is in
public ownership. Much of it is timberland. It only makes sense that
the Federal owners help support local services.
These counties are, by nature, rural, and Secure Rural Schools
funding makes up a large portion of their local budget. Without this
extension, local communities will not be able to make ends meet. For
these reasons, I hope the funding for Secure Rural Schools remains in
the supplemental.
I also express my appreciation for the work of Senators Wyden,
Baucus, and others who have fought so hard to fund this program over
the years. Rural America needs this support to continue.
Another issue I want to draw attention to is the JAG/Byrne funding
used by America's drug task forces. These justice assistance grants
help local law enforcement agencies fight drug dealers and
manufacturers across this country.
There is $490 million in the supplemental to restore funding to this
critical program that will bring the
[[Page 10121]]
amount of last year's level up to $660 million.
Montana has seven drug task forces, which cover three-quarters of
Montana's 56 counties. In 2007, Montana's Drugbusters received almost
$1.3 million. This year, Montana is set to receive only $473,000. That
is a loss of $817,000 in 1 year. The folks on the ground have told me
they are going to have massive cutbacks in programs and in
surveillance. In fact, 27 of the 49 agents statewide would be laid off.
Three of the seven drug task forces would have to close their doors
altogether.
Montana is the fourth largest State, geographically. It is too big
and expansive for us to think we can keep a handle on drug traffickers
with such limited resources. What would happen? More drugs would remain
in our communities, more weapons in the hands of criminals, more
crimes, and more children would be exposed to danger because they would
be continually exposed to volatile situations, criminal behavior, and
drugs. We do not want to go backward.
As a result of the efforts of Montana's Drugbusters, there has been a
significant decrease in the number of meth labs. For instance, in 2002,
there were over 120 labs. In 2006, thanks to the Montana Drugbusters,
there were less than 10 labs in the State of Montana. This is great
work and this work must continue.
Without the restoration of this funding, our efforts to limit drugs
in Montana and throughout the country will be devastated. Our
children's exposure to drugs and crime will be increased, and our
families will be torn apart. Montana cannot afford it. No State can.
Americans deserve better.
I know many of my colleagues share in my strong support for JAG/Byrne
funding and county payments. I appreciate their help in developing and
continuing these programs. I hope this supplemental, in the end,
includes these important programs and that the President signs the
supplemental into law.
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.
Mr. CORNYN. 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.
____________________
APPROVAL RATING OF CONGRESS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we reached a milestone in
Congress, because on Monday it was the 500th day since our friends on
the other side of the aisle took control of both the Senate and House
following the 2006 election. In those 500 days, we have seen
congressional approval rating, according to Rasmussen Surveys, drop to
13 percent of the respondents who believe that Congress has performed
in a good or excellent fashion. I believe one reason why we have seen
this drop in Congress's public approval rating is because we have
failed to address some of the biggest concerns that confront the
American people.
Here is a chart. Four of the concerns are depicted here. The first
number I mention here is the 96 days that Congress--specifically the
House of Representatives--has failed to act to modernize the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, of course, is the law that allows our intelligence community to
listen to telephone conversations between foreign terrorists to learn
of attacks being planned, so as to not only detect them but also to
deter them and defeat our enemies. Why Congress would fail to act to
reauthorize this important piece of legislation for 96 days, I think,
can only cause us to scratch our heads and wonder what could possibly
justify that effective blinding of our intelligence community to new
threats and the kinds of threats that could make us safer, if detected,
deterred, and defeated, and could make us safer here at home and make
our troops safer in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
At the same time, we have been waiting 547 days for Congress to take
up and pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This is important to our
Nation and it is important to my State. Last year alone, Texas sold
$2.3 billion worth of goods and produce to Colombia, a large nation in
South America. Because of tariffs that are currently imposed on those
goods that are sold from Texas to Colombia, or from the United States
to Colombia, it actually discriminates against my small business man
and woman, against the manufacturer, against the producer of farm
goods; whereas, Colombian goods coming into the United States because
of another agreement have no similar tariff or financial
discrimination.
If the Speaker of the House would take up the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement, we could restore a level playing field and create more jobs
in the United States because we would be creating more goods here in
America to sell in Colombia.
Free trade is something that, amazingly, this Congress seems more and
more afraid of, when, in fact, I think it is one of the ways out of our
current economic doldrums. If we continue to create new markets for our
goods and services across the world, that creates jobs at home. If
there is anything like a stimulus package Congress could pass, free-
trade agreements, such as the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, is one of
them.
It is more important than that because Colombia, of course, is one of
our very best allies in Latin America, sitting right next door to Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela, someone who is not our friend and has declared us
his enemy.
I have to think that Raul Castro and Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela are sort of chuckling to themselves, seeing how
America is treating one of our very best allies in Latin America. In
fact, it is President Uribe in Colombia who has been heroic in his
fight against the narcoterrorists, known as the FARC, who recently, we
found out, were not only in cahoots with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez but
planning a lot of no good--buying arms, buying military materiel from
Russia and other places right in our backyard, in Latin America. Why we
would stiff-arm President Uribe in Colombia, one of our very best
allies in Latin America, when it is in our self-interest to create more
markets to sell American goods and services, frankly, is beyond me.
The next number is 692 days. This is how long some judicial nominees,
nominated by President Bush, have been waiting for Senate confirmation.
We know the majority leader pledged to confirm at least three circuit
court nominees before the Memorial Day break. We only have 2 more days
left to go. Obviously, we are not going to meet that pledged goal. So
692 days with nominees waiting for a vote with no real end in sight. It
is clear what is happening. It is an attempt to drag this out until the
election is nigh upon us and then the majority leader can say: We can't
get any more judges confirmed because we are going to have to wait for
the Presidential election to see who will fill those vacancies. But to
wait 692 days without even giving these nominees simply the courtesy of
a hearing or an up-or-down vote is inexcusable. There is just no reason
for it.
The last number on this chart is 758 days. That is the period of time
since Nancy Pelosi, now the Speaker of the House, pledged to come up
with a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline. Mr. President,
758 days later, the price of gasoline is going through the roof, with
no end in sight, and the price of oil, which makes up 70 percent of the
cost of gasoline, is going through the roof, with no end in sight.
We have on this side of the aisle offered what I believe to be a very
constructive plan to produce more American energy and rely less on
imported energy from other parts of the world, and that was rebuffed by
the majority. I am left to wonder, if the majority refuses to take
advantage of American natural resources and reduce our dependency on
imported oil from our enemies at the price of $3.75 a gallon, I wonder
if they would reconsider when
[[Page 10122]]
the price hits $4.75 a gallon or $5.75 a gallon? At what price will we
finally wake up in Congress and recognize that the moratorium we passed
some 30 years ago which banned the exploration for oil and gas on our
Outer Continental Shelf, when oil was $7 a barrel and now is $127 a
barrel, when will we reconsider that policy and decide it is in our
national interest--our national security interest and our economic
interest--to depend more on what God gave us in America, our natural
resources, which can be developed in a way that is consistent with a
good environment and in a way that is responsible?
It is irresponsible to simply ignore reality or to imagine that we in
Congress can suspend the economic laws of supply and demand. As we have
seen oil consumption worldwide go to about 85 million barrels a day, we
know that countries such as China and India, with growing economies,
are using more and more of that oil. So we are competing for a fixed
supply of oil, and the law of supply and demand says: If you have a
fixed supply but increasing demand, the price is going to continue to
go up. But somehow Congress feels as if we can ignore that law or we
can defy that law. We can no more defy the law of supply and demand
than we can the law of gravity. I think the American people understand
that, and I think they are bewildered, as I am, why Congress continues
to defy this basic law of economics.
The bill that will be before the Senate today is a very important
piece of legislation which bears further witness to why Congress is
held in such low regard by the American people. It is because this bill
which was designed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations to
help fund our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq has become a
political football and a lot of unrelated projects have been added to
this bill, which has caused the President to threaten to veto it, which
the majority understands will simply slow down the process of getting
these necessary funds, getting this necessary equipment that these
funds would pay for, to our troops in harm's way.
Twenty-five days from now--Deputy Secretary Gordon England said that
absent additional congressional action, ``the Army will run out of
military personnel funds by mid-June and operation and maintenance
funds by early July.'' In 25 days, unless Congress acts, the military
will run out of personnel funds--that means money used to pay the
military their paychecks each month--and will run out of operation and
maintenance funds by early July.
I believe it is absolutely inexcusable that as we approach Memorial
Day, the men and women of our military are left to wonder whether we
will meet our obligation to make sure there is enough money available
to pay their paychecks so their families can be provided for after
June. While we all have talked about supporting our troops--and that is
very important--how much more basic a way is there to support our
troops than to make sure they are paid the money they are entitled to
on a timely basis and not left to wonder whether Congress will meet
that simple obligation? Talk is one thing; action, which would send a
different message altogether, is another.
It is indisputable that these men and women in our U.S. military have
made tremendous sacrifices for all of us. They have given not only
their precious time, some have even given their lives to protect our
way of life. Many of them have spent months, if not years, away from
their families, missed birthdays, missed births, all in fulfillment of
this noble duty to help keep the oppressed free and to protect our
national security. Now they are left to scratch their heads and wonder
what is going on again in Washington and whether politics is
interfering with Congress's willingness to simply do its duty while
they discharge their duties abroad.
This critical funding includes not only vital pay and allowances but
also the tools our troops need to ensure they have safe passage through
neighborhoods they patrol in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am referring to,
in part, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, or the CERP. When
I was in Baghdad and other places in Iraq in January, the commanding
officers said that these are some of the most useful funds we have made
available to them. Secretary Gates has called it ``the single most
effective program to enable commanders to address local populations'
needs. . . .'' These CERP funds will come to a standstill. Unless
Congress acts on a timely basis without loading down this bill with a
lot of pet projects and pork, it will come to a standstill. Why would
we want to hamstring our commanders in the field in working with local
populations to try to win their hearts and minds? As Secretary Gates
pointed out, CERP is the key in the effort to get potential insurgents
in Iraq and Afghanistan off the streets and into jobs.
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged the
importance of CERP funding. However, despite this acknowledgment,
Congress has provided less than a third of what has been requested, and
now providing those funds at all is left in some doubt. According to
the Department of Defense, unless we provide the remaining $1.2 billion
in CERP funds, the program will grind to a halt. What more important
thing could we be doing in Iraq than trying to win the hearts and minds
of former insurgents and get them deployed so that they lay down their
guns and their bombs and engage in not only the political process but
in the economic revitalization of that war-torn country. We all agree
the Iraqis need to take more responsibility for rebuilding their
country, and that is what these CERP funds are designed to ensure. Why
in the world would we slow them down or fail to see that they are
delivered?
Beyond CERP funds and troop paychecks, the lack of funding begins to
also impact other areas. We will see furloughs of civilian employees of
the Department of Defense if Congress does not act promptly.
Unfortunately, this includes staff members at facilities such as child
development centers which many of our troops depend on for daycare for
their young ones. It would detrimentally impact services provided to
troops and their families at military installations across America and
around the world.
It is sad to note this is not the first time Congress has put our
troops in this position. Once again, while our troops are waiting for
critical funding, needed not only for their own well-being but for the
completion of their mission, some of my colleagues will try to use this
supplemental funding bill to advance pet projects or to resurrect a
tired agenda. Once again, we have seen there will be an attempt to
force yet another vote on the precipitous withdrawal of our troops from
Iraq; that is, based on a political timetable handed down here in
Washington rather than conditions on the ground which will lead to the
likelihood of stability and ultimate success. Despite the countless
debates we have had on this issue and despite the clear and
undisputable evidence of both military and political progress in Iraq,
my colleagues will again refuse to pass a clean supplemental bill to
support our troops. This debate, of which we know the outcome, will do
nothing but delay those funds going to our troops.
It is becoming increasingly evident that American troops and our
Iraqi allies are making great progress in areas that were formerly
labeled as hopeless. In the New York Times today, there is a story on
the front page about how Sadr City, which was basically a no-man's
zone, has now been stabilized by Iraqi troops themselves. Violence is
down, and communities are fighting back against extremism. Life is
slowly returning to normal. Refugees who previously fled that country
are returning home. What better could we hope for than to see these
sorts of developments? Of course, this is thanks in large part to the
sacrifices of our military and our military families.
We also need to acknowledge the great strides being made by the Iraqi
Government. By reasonable estimates, the Iraqis have now met 12 of the
18 benchmarks Congress set for them, and they have begun to fight
against extremism and senseless violence without regard to affiliation
or sectarian identification.
[[Page 10123]]
The recent initiative that Prime Minister Maliki undertook in Basra
is a good example of taking the initiative, of doing what we had hoped
for, and that is taking the training that America and our coalition
partners have provided and using that training to fight for themselves.
The more the Iraqis stand and fight for themselves, the more American
and coalition troops can stand down and ultimately come home.
I think it is important to point out to the American people that what
was supposed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations bill is not
limited to war-related measures, and this is designed to slow down this
important piece of legislation. We know that not only are other pet
projects and unrelated spending measures included, there are $10
million in unrelated emergency spending measures that perhaps might be
justified in some other context, but we need to have this bill passed
cleanly so we can get the money to the troops and so we can debate the
merits of these various other programs at a later time. We should not
use this bill for controversial policy measures.
Our troops, as well as the American people, deserve more open debate
about complex issues--and here are four of them we need to act on--but
we should not use this bill to try to get provisions passed without
either adequate debate or adequate scrutiny. Things that could not be
passed in the light of day should not be passed on this vehicle, this
must-pass vehicle. The men and women who have made tremendous
sacrifices to serve our country deserve more than to have to be asked
to carry on their backs the political agendas of a few of their elected
representatives.
Despite the looming shortfalls for military paychecks, the Senate
does not seem all that concerned. Despite warnings by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense that Congress must act before the Memorial Day
recess, the majority leader recently told people it was no big deal if
Congress did not. I respectfully beg to differ. Failing to supply a
paycheck to our brave soldiers is an incredibly big deal. Playing
politics at a time when our soldiers are being left to wonder whether
they will be able to pay for their food bill, their gasoline bill,
their health care or other items while Congress engages in this sort of
gamesmanship is simply inexcusable.
So I think we could improve congressional approval ratings above the
13 percent who think we are doing a good or excellent job if we would
simply act on this list of items which has been waiting, some for as
many as 758 days, without a response from the Congress and if we would
simply quit using something such as an emergency funding bill for our
troops in harm's way in order to pass other unrelated pet projects or
to try to impose other political agendas. I think if we acted
responsibly, in a bipartisan way, to try to solve some of these
problems, the American people would respond favorably. That would be
good for them, that would be good for the country, and that would be
good for the Senate and the Congress, generally.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SENATOR KENNEDY AND THE WAR ON CANCER
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in about 20 minutes, I know we are
going to turn to pay tribute to Lyndon Baines Johnson. This is LBJ Day
in the Capitol, and there are many speeches that will be made, there
are many celebrations, there is a huge reunion of the LBJ family and
his former staff people and supporters and Cabinet officers, and I am
going to speak in that designated hour. But right now, in morning
business, I would like to speak about another great Senator. I wish to
speak about my colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy.
We all know we got a shock yesterday; that Senator Kennedy has been
diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor, and he has just been released
from the hospital. We are all so grateful he has been able to go to the
comfort of his own home with his family as they are deciding how the
treatment will go forward. But I wish to take a moment to talk about
something we have been working on together.
If I could think of one word for Senator Ted Kennedy, it would be
``fighter.'' He is a fighter for the causes in which he believes. In
his 46 years as a Senator, he has fought on behalf of the American
people, waging so many battles to advance the causes of justice,
opportunity, and peace. Now, he is set to wage the greatest fight of
his life, and in that fight he has the support and prayers of all his
colleagues and all the American people.
Senator Kennedy's startling diagnosis comes the week after he and I
announced our commitment to renew the war on cancer. For the last
several months, Senator Kennedy and I have been working on a bill to
evaluate our progress on cancer research and treatment, address our
shortcomings, and renew our commitment to eradicating this disease.
There is no other person I would rather be working with on this
initiative--now more than ever.
Senator Kennedy's diagnosis is such a poignant reminder that the
battle has not been won. On May 8, the committee he chairs--the Senate
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--held a hearing to
discuss the Kennedy-Hutchison bill. Advocates and survivors of cancer
such as Lance Armstrong and Elizabeth Edwards spoke about the need for
progress and reform in all areas of cancer research and treatment. In
the 37 years since the national declaration of the war on cancer, the
age-adjusted mortality rate for cancer is still very high. When it is
compared to the mortality rates of other chronic diseases, it is
extraordinarily high. While there have been substantial achievements
since the crusade began, we are far from winning this war. Let's look
at the statistics.
Today, one out of two men and one out of three women will develop
cancer in their lifetime. In my home State of Texas, approximately
96,000 people are expected to be diagnosed with cancer and 35,000 are
expected to die of cancer in 2008 alone. The NIH, the National
Institutes of Health, estimates the overall cost of cancer to our
Nation in 2007 was $219 billion.
These grim statistics should not belie the wealth of knowledge we
have gained over the years, but it is time for legislation to address
the shortcomings in the structure of cancer research and treatment.
Senator Kennedy and I are leading the effort to renew our war on
cancer. We want to continue our search for cures, more effective
treatments, and better preventive measures. The cancer community must
embrace a coordinated assault against this disease. We must start
looking at more cooperative efforts that focus on the big picture. The
bill Senator Kennedy and I will introduce is targeted at the following:
removing barriers currently hindering our progress in cancer research
and treatment; improving access to early detection measures and cancer
care; reducing disparities in cancer treatment; increasing enrollment
in clinical trials--this is a very important part that I think is one
of the keys we are missing; and encouraging additional opportunities
for cancer research and more cooperative cancer research.
Our bill will encourage the movement of medications and treatment
from the laboratory to the bedside more quickly. It is time we started
sharing more information. There is great research being done at many of
our institutions--some in my home State of Texas and some in his home
State of Massachusetts are the very best; in Maryland at Johns Hopkins;
in Minnesota. We have wonderful research institutions. But we are not
sharing the information enough. We need to make sure this is a
wholesale war and we are all in the same army, that we are marching in
the same direction, and that we are coordinated in doing that.
[[Page 10124]]
As Senator Kennedy wages his own personal war on this dreaded
disease, he will also be leading America's war on cancer with the
Kennedy-Hutchison bill that we will introduce in the Senate. So many
times Senator Kennedy has been the voice for the American people. He
will truly be the voice for this bill to renew the war on cancer at
this very difficult time in his life.
I know he is going to be standing on this floor, he is going to be
negotiating this bill, he is going to be relentless in making sure it
goes through with bipartisan support. We will work with the President--
he will work with this President--because I have seen how he has worked
with President Bush to further public education.
Senator Kennedy and I are going to renew the war on cancer with a new
vigor and we are going to do it together, and he is going to pass this
legislation. I know he will be by my side in his fight and in his fight
for the American people. We are going to support him at this time in
every possible way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I intend to speak about Senator
Kennedy at a later time in more depth. Certainly there have been a lot
of Senators who have said a quiet little prayer for the complete
recovery of Senator Kennedy that would include other colleagues, some
of whom we do not even know about. Certainly we know about the
recurrence of the cancer in the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.
We certainly know of the physical health challenges the President pro
tempore, Senator Byrd, is going through. Since this is a Senate family,
perhaps the world at large doesn't understand that political
differences, just as in a real family, can keep people separated. But
when there is a time of need and healing, the family comes together.
That is certainly the case in what we feel about Senator Kennedy,
Senator Specter, Senator Byrd. But I will be speaking about that later.
____________________
LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, when Lyndon Johnson was Senator
and majority leader, he had observed that during the Korean war, often
the Soviet Union held the high ground because their MiGs could fly
higher than our planes. Certainly as majority leader he went through
the shocks that the entire Nation experienced when the Soviets
surprised us by the launch of the first satellite, Sputnik. We knew
then that the Soviet Union had the high ground. At that point the
Nation came together, realizing we had a serious problem because we had
an adversary that was dedicated to the elimination of the United States
of America and that for our defense interests we clearly had to start
doing something about it.
There is the whole story of that extraordinary time of the late 1950s
when America came together, when we finally had to reach out to a group
of German scientists. We were fortunate, at the end of World War II, to
get to Peenumunde, Germany, before the Soviets did, in order to get
most of those German rocket scientists, led by Werner von Braun.
Ultimately that was the team to which we turned to produce the rocket
that could get our first satellite--Explorer was its name--in orbit.
But that was after we were shocked.
This Senate, this Congress, under the leadership of Lyndon Johnson,
said we have to organize ourselves in a way that we can take this on.
That was the birth of NASA, 50 years ago this year. NASA was the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Now that acronym has
become the noun; everybody knows it as NASA. It was the organization
that was given the task after that majority leader put that through
this Chamber and through the Congress, to have it signed into law by
President Eisenhower, with all the ingredients in the law that would
give us this Federal agency that could take on this daunting task.
Along comes the election of 1960 and Lyndon Johnson doesn't get the
nomination but, because the nominee is smart enough to realize he has
to bring together the party in a tough election, Lyndon Johnson is his
Vice President. So they get into their first year in office and the
Soviets surprise us again and they take the high ground when they
launch Yuri Gagarin into one orbit.
Mind you, we didn't even have a rocket at that point that we could
put a human on the top of that could get us to orbit. We were still
operating off of that Army Redstone rocket that von Braun had
successfully put up to put the first satellite in orbit, but it only
had enough throw-weight, or power, to take that Mercury capsule with
one human in it and put it into suborbit.
I remember when I was a young Congressman back in the 1980s, one day
Tip O'Neill, the Speaker, saw me on the floor and he said: Bill, come
here. He knew I had just flown in space. He wanted to tell me a story.
As a young Boston Congressman, Tip O'Neill was down at the White
House--the John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson White House--and he said: I had
never seen the President so nervous that day. He was pacing back and
forth. He was just like a cat on a hot tin roof.
He asked one of the aides what is going on, and he realized that
Kennedy knew that we were just about to launch Alan Shepherd, only in
suborbit--and this is a few weeks after Gagarin has already taken the
high ground. Of course it was then a second suborbit with Grissom, and
it was 10 months later that America had John Glenn climbing into that
Mercury capsule on top of an Atlas rocket that had a 20 percent chance
of failure. Of course we know the rest of the story.
Interestingly, what happened in between that time when the Soviets
had taken the high ground with Gagarin up, before we could get Glenn up
for three orbits, the President made the decision--and it was a bold,
new vision--and said we are going to the Moon and back within 9 years.
But then he turned to his Vice President to implement it. Therein lay
the idea and the secret to one of the most successful governmental and
technological achievements in the history of humankind with the White
House, specifically the Vice President, directing the way, giving
complete carte blanche to their newly selected Director of NASA, Jim
Webb, to go forth and do this magnificent technological achievement.
Of course we had to scramble. Even after we had John Glenn up, the
Soviets still held the high ground. They did the first rendezvous in
space. But then we started to catch up and of course America knows this
wonderful success story in which we were able to go to the Moon and
return safely, a feat that has not been accomplished by any others.
I come back to why I am standing on this floor today. America has had
that success because of the then Vice President of the United States,
Lyndon Johnson, who then became President and pushed that program on
through to extraordinary success.
It is fitting that the space center that trains those astronauts is
named the Lyndon Baines Johnson Space Center.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________
REMEMBERING LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time between
now and noon is set aside for remarks regarding President Johnson; is
that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the summer of 1908, a man named Sam Ealy
Johnson, Sr., rode through the Texas hill country, announcing to
whomever happened to pass by, ``A United States Senator was born this
morning!''
The name of his grandson--Lyndon Baines Johnson.
I am pleased today to mark the beginning of the celebration for the
100th birthday of that boy from Texas who would not only be Senator,
but Senate majority leader, Vice-President, and President of the United
States.
There is a tradition on the floor of the Senate of which our
colleagues but few Americans are aware.
[[Page 10125]]
If you open any of the desks in the Senate Chamber, you will find
carved the names of each Senator who was assigned the desk in years
past.
Among the names carved in my desk is Lyndon Baines Johnson.
America and the world know Lyndon Johnson as the President with a
steady hand that guided our country through a deeply troubled era--and
was the guiding hand in creating the Great Society.
But those of us in the Senate--and his family and dear friends who
join us here today--know that it was this Senate Chamber--this Capitol
Building--that was his home.
Born in the Hill Country of Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson came to the
Senate in 1948 after prevailing in one of the closest Senate contests
in American history.
As my colleagues well know, most rookie Senators arrive in Washington
resigned to spending a few years getting to know the rules and
traditions of this body--biding their time and gaining seniority.
Not Lyndon Johnson. His rise to power was laser-fast.
He was appointed to the powerful Armed Services Committee within his
first 2 years, and was elected assistant democratic leader--or majority
whip--in 1951.
No Senator ever rose to the leadership of the Senate faster.
But Lyndon Johnson had good timing as well as talent as his allies.
In the 1952 election, Dwight Eisenhower was elected in a landslide,
sweeping Republicans into power in both the House and Senate.
Among the defeated Democrats was Majority Leader Ernest McFarland of
Arizona.
With just 4 years tenure, 4 years in the U.S. Senate, Lyndon Johnson
became the Democratic leader of the Senate.
At the time, the positions of majority and minority leader took a
backseat to the powerful committee chairmanships.
Lyndon Johnson had a different vision, and it is no exaggeration to
say that he singlehandedly made the job of leader what it is today.
After establishing himself as the legislative and political leader of
the Senate Democrats, Johnson was uniquely well-positioned in 1954,
when Democrats regained the majority and he became majority leader.
What followed is the stuff of legend.
Based upon his philosophy that ``The only real power available to the
leader is the power of persuasion,'' Lyndon Baines Johnson used that
power to the fullest.
In just 1 day in 1956, Lyndon Johnson's Senate confirmed two
appointments and passed 90 bills a record that may stand for all time.
The quantity of Johnson's Senate work was impressive, but so was the
quality.
As an exhibit at the LBJ library says:
By working to find common ground uniting liberals and
conservatives alike, LBJ's Senate passed legislation to
increase the minimum wage, extend social security benefits,
increase public housing construction, create an interstate
highway system, create a national space agency and enact the
first civil rights legislation since 1875. The majority
leader's inspiration was the prophet Isaiah, who preached
``Come now, and let us reason together,'' a philosophy--and a
result--that unquestionably and dramatically improved the
lives of all Americans.
On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome members of Lyndon Johnson's
family, his former staff, and friends of the Johnson family to the U.S.
Senate to mark his 100th birthday and honor his life.
This celebration is tinged with sadness that his beloved wife Lady
Bird passed away last year and is not with us today.
As President, Lyndon Johnson once said--``This nation, this
generation, in this hour has man's first chance to build a Great
Society, a place where the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of
man's labor.''
Lyndon Baines Johnson's pursuit of a Great Society is a legacy that
changed America forever and will last as long as our Republic stands.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today to speak on
the life and legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He served his country as
a teacher, naval officer, Congressman, Senator, Vice President, and
finally President of the United States. In every stop along the way of
his storied career, he blazed new boundaries of the possible in
American politics.
When Lyndon Johnson first came to this body in January 1949, he was
teased by his fellow Senators with the nickname ``Landslide Lyndon,''
due to his victory in the Texas senatorial primary election by just 87
votes. Within a few years he had taken the fastest path to being
elected a floor leader in Senate history.
Johnson went on to serve as both minority leader and majority leader
during the 8 years of the Eisenhower administration, and shaped
legislation dealing with the Cold War, agriculture, labor and civil
rights.
Lyndon Johnson showed the same compassion and courtesy to the Texas
rancher or the destitute living in America's deepest pockets of poverty
as he did to the powerful and the mighty. In fact, through his
generosity of spirit, he made a friend out of one special Pakistani
camel-cart driver.
Some of my colleagues who are old enough may remember that in 1961,
as Vice President, Johnson toured the country of Pakistan and at one
point stopped to meet an illiterate camel-cart driver named Bashir
Ahmad.
Still displaying his Texan manners half a world away, the Vice
President told the man, ``You all come to Washington and see us
sometime.'' Imagine his surprise when Bashir Ahmad decided to take him
up on his request.
But the quick-thinking Johnson turned his unexpected guest's visit
into a boon for American-Pakistani relations. He met Ahmad personally
at the airport, to see the man at the end of his first-ever jet plane
ride.
Johnson treated his guest to a barbecue at the LBJ ranch in Texas,
enabled him to step onto the floor of this U.S. Senate, and arranged
for his visit to the Lincoln Memorial.
He even brought together the camel-cart driver and the former U.S.
President, Harry Truman, who was so taken with Ahmad's eloquence that
he referred to the Pakistani visitor as ``His Excellency.''
The final Johnson touch came just as Bashir Ahmad was about to board
his plane for the ride home back to Pakistan. He opened a telegram from
the Vice President which read: ``Since your return to Pakistan takes
you so close to Mecca, arrangements have been made . . . for you to
visit there.''
This was just one example of many of the canny Texan's consummate
political skills.
Now just like Bashir Ahmad, I had the honor of being in Lyndon
Johnson's presence once, and for a very momentous occasion. In August
1965, I came here, to our Nation's Capitol, to visit Senator John
Sherman Cooper.
In 1964, after receiving my undergraduate degree from the University
of Louisville, I worked as an intern for Senator Cooper and watched up
close as he applied his wisdom and experience to the issues that
gripped Kentucky and the Nation in the 1960s.
After completing my first year in law school, I came back to
Washington to visit the Senator who had become my mentor and friend.
I was waiting to see Senator Cooper in his outer office when suddenly
he emerged and motioned for me to follow him. We walked together from
his office in Russell 125 to the Capitol Rotunda, where I saw more
people, and more security, than I had ever seen before.
Then Senator Cooper told me what was happening: President Johnson was
about to sign the Voting Rights Act, an act that was the culmination of
Lyndon Johnson's years of effort in support of civil rights that had
begun when he still served in the Senate.
Soon enough, the President emerged. Every good biography of President
Johnson describes him as a larger- than-life man, with an imposing
physical presence. Let me testify right now, from personal experience,
that they are correct.
President Johnson seemed to tower a head taller than anyone else in
the room. He was a commanding figure that immediately filled the
Rotunda.
[[Page 10126]]
A journalist once described a typical Lyndon Johnson entrance as
``the Western movie barging into the room''--it's hard to put it better
than that.
I was overwhelmed to witness such a moment in history. As he was
about to sign the legislation that he would later point to as his
greatest accomplishment, President Johnson said, ``Today is a triumph
for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any
battlefield.''
Although I am sure that if my good friend Phil Gramm, the former
Senator from LBJ's own Lone Star State, were here, he would add one
more honor that ranked above all the rest: Lyndon Baines Johnson,
Texan.
Today this U.S. Senate recognizes the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson
and his many achievements. I join with my colleagues today in asking
all Americans to celebrate the Lyndon B. Johnson Centennial.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the opening pages of his acclaimed
biography, ``Master of the Senate,'' Robert Caro describes Lyndon
Johnson in his prime, as majority leader. He recalls how LBJ would come
barreling through those swinging double doors in the Democratic
cloakroom and stride out onto this floor--all 6-feet 4-inches of him--
looking for that last vote he needed to carry his cause. He was, Caro
said, like a force of nature.
As the Democratic whip, I have the privilege of occupying an office
in this building that LBJ used when he was majority leader of the
Senate. This afternoon, I had the privilege of meeting in that office
with a longtime assistant of LBJ's, Ashton Gonella.
Mrs. Gonella regaled my staff and about how the office was arranged
then, and what it was like to work for Lyndon Johnson.
She said that her desk was located in an outer office, just outside
LBJ's office. At 5 o'clock each evening is when the real negotiating
began, she said.
Part of her job was to spot a Senator as he walked down the hall,
headed for an appointment with LBJ, and have that Senator's favorite
drink mixed and ready for him by the time he reached her desk. The
Senator would then walk in to see the majority leader and together,
they would see if they couldn't find some way to reach an honorable
compromise on the issue at hand.
Those were different days in the Senate. If you come to my office
today, the strongest drink you are likely to be offered is a cup of
coffee or a soda.
I tell that story about LBJ partly to illustrate a point: When it
comes to negotiating compromises and finding that lost vote needed to
pass a bill, few Senators in the history of this institution have ever
come close to Lyndon Johnson.
Stiff drinks were only one of the many means he employed.
There is a famous series of photographs taken by a New York Times
photographer. It shows LBJ as majority leader, trying to persuade
Senator Theodore Francis Green of Rhode Island to see things LBJ's way.
The photos depict what journalists used to call ``the full Johnson
treatment.''
That experience was probably best described by the journalists Bob
Novak and Rowland Evans in their book, ``Lyndon Johnson: The Exercise
of Power.'' As they put it:
The Treatment could last 10 minutes or four hours . . . Its
tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance,
scorn, tears, complaint, the hint of threat. It was all of
these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its
velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction .
. . He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his
target . . . his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows
rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos,
statistics. Mimicry, humor and the genius of analogy made the
Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the
target stunned and helpless.
Almost always, the ``treatment'' succeeded.
He was a master of political power and persuasion. He knew how to
accumulate power. More importantly, he knew how to use his political
power to make government work. He believed that one of the purposes of
government was to try to make America better and more just.
When he was 21 years old, Lyndon Johnson had an experience that had a
profound and lasting effect on him. He was studying at Southwest Texas
State Teachers College and he took a year off to teach poor Latino
children in the little town of Cotulla, TX, near the Mexican border.
Nearly 40 years later, President Johnson spoke of those children and
the impact they had on him. Proposing the Voting Rights Act to a joint
session of Congress, then-President Johnson said, ``Somehow, you never
forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the
hopeful face of a young child.''
He added:
I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing
here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest
dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and
daughters of those students and to help people like them all
over this country. But now I have that chance--and I'll let
you in on a secret--I mean to use it.
When he was told that his support for the Voting Rights Act might
cause problems for his Administration, LBJ reportedly replied: Well,
what the heck's the presidency for? Only he used a different word than
``heck.''
As a Senator and as President, Lyndon Baines Johnson used what power
he had to help give our Nation some of the most important legislation
of the second-half of the 20th century--including the Civil Rights Act
of 1957--the first civil rights bill in nearly a century--the landmark
Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Rights Act, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the Fair Housing Act--the list goes on and on.
He was not perfect, by any means. But he helped move America forward
in many important ways.
Another phrase that Lyndon Johnson used often was a passage from the
Book of Isaiah. It has been a favorite passage of his father's. ``Come,
let us reason together.''
He believed that in a democracy, people could usually find an
honorable compromise if they would just talk to each other and ``reason
together.''
In this year of the centennial of his birth, our Nation would be well
served if we would all take that lesson to heart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of the
most significant Presidents of the 20th century, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Of course, I am especially proud that he is a Texan, my home State, and
was the first President to be elected from Texas.
This is the 100th anniversary year of the birth of President Johnson.
We all know, during his 6 years as President, he was a passionate
advocate for equal rights and expanded opportunities for all Americans.
I did not know President Johnson personally because I was a freshman
member, very new member of the Texas legislature, when he died in 1973.
But the gracious family, Lady Bird Johnson, that ever wonderful
hospitable wife whom we all loved, wanted to make sure all the
legislators in Texas were invited to his funeral. So I was able to
attend at the Texas ranch, which of course was a beautiful tribute to
his life in the place he loved the most.
Though I did not know him, I will certainly say that since I came to
the Senate, I have heard story after story after story about his
service in this body. The book about his life, called ``Master of the
Senate,'' is considered required reading for all of us here.
Because, in fact, he was a master of this Senate. He did things as
majority leader that had never been done before. I have been privileged
to know his wonderful wife Lady Bird Johnson, who is one of our most
loved First Ladies in the history of our country.
Lady Bird died last year, as was mentioned before. She, in her own
light, left a legacy. He worked with her on many of the things she did.
The beautification efforts Lady Bird contributed to our country are a
part of the overall LBJ legacy. Of course, Head Start, which is one of
the major accomplishments of the LBJ administration, giving every child
that head start before they enter the first grade so there
[[Page 10127]]
would be a more level playing field, was also a Lady Bird Johnson
initiative.
They worked together to make sure the children of our country had
that opportunity. I wish to talk a little bit more about that in a few
minutes. But I do wish to mention two of the people I now consider
among my real friends, Linda and Luci.
Linda and I went to the University of Texas together. We became
friends there. She is a wonderful person. I have become friends with
Luci as I have worked for the LBJ Library.
I will never forget, as long as I live, that I was in Austin and was
promoting giving blood for one of the disasters, and they needed more
blood at the blood bank. I heard on the radio that Luci Johnson had
gone to give blood after she heard I was there and promoting the giving
of blood. That is the kind of person she is.
She and Linda truly carry on the legacy of their mother, Lady Bird
who was a gracious, thoughtful, wonderful person.
Linda and Luci take after their mother, and, of course, the President
whom we all appreciated so much for the leadership he gave. They had a
wonderful partnership, where they filled in for what the other did not
have.
Lyndon Johnson was born in Stonewall, TX, in 1908. After graduating
from high school and spending a year as an elevator operator, he began
his career in the field of education.
In 1927, he borrowed $75 and started attending Southwest Texas State
Teachers College in San Marcos, which today is Texas State University.
After graduating in 1930, he devoted a year to teaching Hispanic
children at the Welhausen School in Cotulla, which is 90 miles south of
San Antonio.
Decades later, when he was in the White House, President Johnson
reminisced:
I shall never forget the faces of the boys and girls in that little
Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing
and knowing then that college was closed to practically every one of
those children because they were too poor. And I think it was then that
I made up his mind, that this Nation could never rest while the door to
knowledge remained closed to any American.
Lyndon Johnson never did rest. After serving as a teacher and
principal in 1935, he was appointed head of the Texas National Youth
Administration. Then 2 years later, he ran for, and won, a seat in the
U.S. House of Representatives. He was subsequently reelected to the
House in every election until 1948 when he was elected to the Senate.
He later went on the ticket with President John Kennedy. It was on
November 22, 1963, that fateful day that none of us will ever forget,
that Lyndon Johnson became the 36th President of the United States.
During his Presidency, Lyndon Johnson moved aggressively to confront
the problems that plagued America, especially the extraordinary
challenge that had vexed our country since its very beginning, the
challenge of racism.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson used his formidable legislative skills, honed
from his days right here in this Chamber as majority leader, to pass
the Civil Rights Act. Then, in 1965, he pushed Congress to pass the
Voting Rights Act.
The Civil Rights Act was the culmination of a decade-long civil
rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But in a real sense,
it was the fulfillment of a two-century struggle to give life to the
words in our Declaration of Independence, ``that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.''
During his term in office, President Johnson also embarked on a war
on poverty, creating government programs such as food stamps, the Job
Corps, the Community Action Program, and Vista, among others. The war
on poverty was a part of a larger initiative that President Johnson
called the Great Society. One of the most important aspects of the
Great Society was improving American education. President Johnson
believed that every American needed a solid public education to turn
the aspirations of the Great Society into reality. In his words:
We must open the doors of opportunity, but we must also equip our
people to walk through those doors.
From 1963 to 1969, President Johnson signed over 60 education bills,
including a pair of landmark achievements: the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and the Higher Education Act. He also launched Project
Head Start. In a very real sense, he was America's first education
President.
As President, Lyndon Johnson opened the doors of opportunity for
millions of Americans, but he would be the first to acknowledge that we
still have a long way to go. As a former teacher, he knew how important
education was to the competitiveness of our country. Because of his
achievements in the field of education, I worked with all of my
colleagues to pass a bill last year naming the Department of Education
headquarters after President Johnson. This is the only building in the
District of Columbia that bears the name of our 36th President. While
attending the naming ceremony last year, I couldn't help but think of
Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson looking down on us and smiling with pride.
I want to also mention something that my colleague, Senator Bill
Nelson, mentioned because another of his legacies, of course, is NASA.
We all remember when President Kennedy renewed our space initiative,
but it was President Johnson who took that initiative--the wonderful
words we all remember of President Kennedy, that we would put a man on
the Moon--and implemented that vision and made sure that we had the
wherewithal to do it. We needed the money. We needed to encourage
scientists to propel us into space and put us eventually on the Moon.
It was President Johnson, and we now have the Johnson Space Center near
Houston, Texas, where we still remember the words: Houston, the Eagle
has landed. When we did land on the Moon, it was the first words back
to the Johnson Space Center that people heard Neil Armstrong say on
that wonderful day.
As a Texan and an American, I am certainly proud of the achievements
of President Lyndon Johnson. In his farewell speech, President Johnson
said:
I hope it may be said, a hundred years from now, that by working
together we helped make our country more just, more just for all its
people, as well as to ensure and guarantee the blessings of liberty for
all of our posterity.
It has been almost 40 years since that speech and 100 years since his
birth. Looking back, I think we can safely say that our country is more
just, and it is more prosperous, thanks in part to the leadership of
President Johnson.
On this LBJ day in our Nation's Capital, let's remember a man who
helped our country reach the promise of her founding document and gave
us a vision of a better America that even now is worthy of our
commitment. I am a cosponsor of the resolution honoring President
Johnson's service and his positive legacy for our country.
I am pleased to note that in the gallery we have the President's
family, and we have the President's extended family. He always
considered the Members of his Cabinet, the members of his staff, his
extended family. We have the people who are carrying on his legacy, the
people who run the LBJ library and the LBJ school, which is such an
important part of my alma mater, the University of Texas. It is such a
wonderful place for students to come and learn about his era in office,
public service. We are in the process of expanding and renovating the
library, making sure the library stays the wonderful edifice that it
is, with all of the wonderful artifacts in it. There will be a plaza
called the Lady Bird Johnson Plaza that will also celebrate the
beautification she gave to our country right there on the campus of the
University of Texas. The people who are keeping that legacy alive are
also with us today. The LBJ ranch that he loved so much, where he and
Mrs. Johnson are buried, is also now a park. It is a State
[[Page 10128]]
park and a national park where people can come and have the freedom to
roam. They will be able to walk on trails. They will be able to see a
great part of the State that I love so much and he loved so much. The
fact that we are preserving that as a park will be one more way to show
the love that he and Lady Bird Johnson had for our country.
This is a great day for us in the Capitol. I am proud to be a part of
the resolution honoring this wonderful family.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to
honor one of Texas' most famous leaders, President Lyndon B. Johnson.
This year will mark the 100th anniversary of his birth, and the LBJ
Foundation has chosen this week to honor his service to America in
Washington, DC.
Texas has a rich history of men and women--often from humble
beginnings--who work to accomplish great things. Lyndon Johnson was no
exception. Johnson was born near Stonewall, TX, nearly 100 years ago,
to Texas legislator and poor farmer Samuel Johnson, Jr., and Rebekah
Baines.
Johnson was a natural public servant. In his early days he studied at
then Southwest Texas University's teaching college. One of his first
teaching jobs was at a small school in Cotulla Texas for Mexican-
American children. His work with those students would forever shape his
dedication to those in need.
``[They] had so little and needed so much,'' he once remarked. ``I
was determined to spark something inside them, to fill their souls with
ambition and interest and belief in the future.'' This eagerness to
help others would be a noble and defining characteristic of Lyndon B.
Johnson.
While he spent time teaching at several schools across Texas, it was
not long before Lyndon Johnson took his first foray into public
politics.
Johnson quickly worked his way through the Texas State Legislature
and into the U.S. House of Representatives, and eventually into the
U.S. Senate.
The seat he took, I should note, is the same seat once held by
another very famous Texan, Sam Houston. That same seat now carries a
long and honored lineage, and it is my privilege to now serve in this
esteemed seat.
Early on, Senator Johnson made a name for himself as a man of action,
who would work across the aisle to pass important legislation, and who
held an incredible power of persuasion. He quickly became majority
whip, and eventually majority leader of the Senate.
I know that one of his greatest accomplishments in the U.S. Senate
was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957--a landmark bill to
help ensure the right of all people to vote. Of course, Johnson's
legacy as a staunch defender of civil rights would not end there.
Of course, Lyndon Johnson's presidency would come in the wake of
national tragedy. Despite the conditions under which he took office,
President Johnson helped console a nation in mourning, and ensure that
America would recover--both physically and emotionally.
President Johnson continued the same fervent defense of Civil Rights
in America that he had begun early in his life. He helped enact the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the famous Voting Rights Act.
At the same time, Johnson worked tirelessly to ensure a better
education for all American children, and was a key proponent of NASA
and the space race.
Despite the turbulent times under which he served this country,
President Johnson did his best to unite our country and promote a
freer, more equal society. He will long be remembered for his great
advances for the sciences, education, and civil rights--to name just a
few accomplishments.
It is my pleasure to stand today and honor President Johnson for his
service, not only to Texas, but to our Nation as a whole. In his
service to our country he never forgot the many Texas values with which
he was raised, and as such he and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson, became
iconic figures in Texas History.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this year we celebrate the centennial of
the birth of a man who dedicated his life to the proposition that all
of us are created equal. A legislator, a president of the Senate, a
President of the United States: Lyndon Baines Johnson.
It wasn't just that Lyndon Johnson was one of the first Presidents to
care deeply about the well-being of people of color. It was that he was
uniquely capable of turning that desire to help into results.
It is almost impossible to overstate the impact of the legislation he
pushed through Congress, impossible to overstate how much better off we
are as a nation thanks to his heroic efforts to guarantee civil rights
voting rights and educational opportunity for all.
Whatever else people will note about Johnson's life, whatever
disagreements anyone had with him, whatever brush historians will use
to paint him, there is no one who can convincingly cast doubt on his
very real devotion to the interests of the less fortunate.
In 1928, Johnson took time off from teacher's college to teach at a
small school for young Mexican Americans in Cotulla, TX. Right before
he signed the Higher Education Act in 1965, Johnson thought back on his
time in the classroom.
He said:
I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in
that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet
the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was
closed to practically every one of those children because
they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my
mind that this nation could never rest while the door to
knowledge remained closed to any American.
I was 11-years old when he spoke those words. Seven years later, when
it was time for a Latino kid from a working-class family to go to
college, I could do it, because of educational assistance from the
federal government, assistance Johnson had championed.
Because of him, I could go on to law school. Because of him, I felt
that no door in public service could legitimately be closed to me. It
is a powerful truth, and it is very clear: I would not be standing here
today if it weren't for Lyndon Johnson.
If he were still standing here today himself, still a U.S. Senator,
it is hard to believe there would be an atmosphere of
hyperpartisanship. It is hard to believe that he would allow compassion
to lose out to suspicion in guiding the business of our Nation.
If only he could be with us today, each time we are on the verge of a
crucial vote that will test our conscience, if only all Senators could
see Johnson's figure towering over them, feel his hand on their lapel,
hear his voice in their ear, pushing the legislative process toward a
just conclusion.
So as we remember his life this year, there is no better time to
rededicate ourselves to the greatest of the principles for which he
lived.
There is no better time to make sure that when we sit in the
presiding chair, we swing the gavel for justice; that when we speak, we
raise our voices for equality; that when we vote, we vote for
compassion for fellow human beings regardless of the color of their
skin, the language that they speak, or the country in which they were
born.
Even in his absence, let us remember his conscience. Let us allow his
memory to shame the shadows of bigotry out of this Chamber. And let us
fill our hearts with his spirit, so in our Nation, the spirit of
progress will endure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in 1960, when I was a young Member of the
United States House of Representatives, I had the high privilege and
the great honor of seconding the nomination of Lyndon Baines Johnson
for President of the United States at the Democratic National
Convention in Los Angeles. But, as we all know, Senator John F. Kennedy
was nominated. However, before the convention adjourned, Senator
Johnson was selected as Senator Kennedy's running mate. In November of
that year, the Kennedy-Johnson team prevailed by a very close
[[Page 10129]]
margin. But in 1963, the tragedy of Dallas brought this winning
combination to an abrupt and sad halt.
Lyndon Johnson succeeded President Kennedy, but it was sadly clear to
all of Lyndon Johnson's friends that this was not the way he wanted to
become President. Nonetheless, Lyndon Johnson assumed the awesome
responsibilities of the Presidency and carried forward the unfinished
work of President Kennedy.
A year after the assassination, Lyndon Johnson guided the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 into becoming our Nation's landmark law on civil
rights. It was a great step forward in the rights of men and women. It
was also a great step forward for our Nation. But Lyndon Johnson did
not stop. In 1965, he secured passage of the Voting Rights Act, opening
polling places to all African Americans in the South. Two years later,
he nominated the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court.
His nominee, Thurgood Marshall, became recognized as one of the High
Court's finest Justices. In fact, it was Lyndon Johnson who, during the
11-year period from 1957 to 1968, was behind the first five civil
rights laws in our history, either as author or chief architect or
primary sponsor.
For a southerner like Lyndon Johnson, taking such a leading role on
civil rights took a special sort of courage. Yet he knew he was doing
the right thing. He transformed the Emancipation Proclamation of more
than 100 years ago into becoming a reality. Civil rights was one of the
building blocks that President Johnson envisioned for the Great Society
of America. His Great Society Program, which the Congress embraced,
provided greater support for education, especially of poor children.
From 1963 to 1968, Congress followed his lead and enacted more than 40
major laws to foster education. He also supported the arts and
humanities by establishing the national endowments.
His Great Society declared war on poverty. He aided millions of older
Americans with passage of the 1965 Medicare amendment through the
Social Security Act. He also championed older Americans with the
passage of legislation in 1967 against age discrimination in the
workplace.
As President, Lyndon Johnson also worked for peace and the survival
of mankind. In 1967, he secured the ban on atomic weapons in space, and
this is the universal law at the moment. The following year, the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed, and it still stands.
Unfortunately, Lyndon Johnson did not seek reelection in 1968 because
of the war in Vietnam. But his legacy of leadership in both the Senate
and the White House continues to this day.
The man from Texas will always loom large in the history of the
United States. For me, it was a most special privilege and a great
honor to have known and worked with Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I first came to the Senate in 1967 as a
young aide to Senator Howard Baker and was here during the last two
years of the Johnson Presidency. So, I heard firsthand stories about
Lyndon Johnson, the Senator, and his larger-than-life, in-your-face
personality with other Senators. I felt, in the elections of 1966 and
1968--which were my first in politics--how his support for civil rights
legislation had made him a controversial President. I felt, also, at my
age, the agony of the war in Vietnam. And I watched, with surprise, on
television in 1968 when he said he would not run for another term in
the Presidency.
Now, today, 40 years later, I see him as I think most Americans
clearly see him: as one of our most consequential Presidents and public
figures.
Every January or February, my youngest son and I go to Cotulla, TX.
Senator Hutchison spoke of Cotulla, TX as the place where Lyndon
Johnson taught in the elementary grades. I never cease to go to
Cotulla, TX without thinking of what a remarkable comment it is upon
our country to think that a graduate of San Marcos State could go to
Cotulla, TX, and be teaching in an elementary school, and then 13 years
later be in the Senate and on his way to being the Minority leader, the
Majority leader, the Vice President, and then President of the United
States.
There are many examples of how in our country anything is possible. I
know of no better example than the life of Lyndon Johnson.
Others will say more about President Johnson and his contribution to
the Senate and to our country, but today I want to say a few words
about his family. My contemporaries were the Johnson children, Luci and
Lynda, and especially Lynda and Chuck Robb. Chuck was Governor of
Virginia when I was Governor of Tennessee. We have known each other
well since that time.
I saw their daughter, Jennifer, this morning, and I can remember when
she had our youngest son Will in a headlock one time at a Governors
Conference. I can remember learning, either from Lynda or perhaps it
was from Luci, lessons about how children--and the Presiding Officer
will appreciate this, especially since his father was a distinguished
Governor of Pennsylvania--about how to grow up in a family where your
parents are public officials, as Senators or Governors or even
Presidents, in their case.
One of the Johnson girls told me she did not like very much going to
political events--our children were much the same--until one day their
father, President Johnson, said: Let me make a suggestion to you. I
want you to find one interesting thing about three people at the event
you go to, and then come back to me afterwards and tell me what you
found out. Lynda told me that changed the way she thought about going
to those events. It gave her a way to go to them and make them more
interesting. I told all of our children that, and they did it as well.
It was good advice for children of parents in public life.
But in speaking of the family, I want to especially speak of Mrs.
Johnson, Lady Bird, and her contribution to preserving the natural
beauty of America.
Mrs. Johnson convened the first White House Conference on Natural
Beauty, saying:
Surely a civilization that can send a man to the moon can
also find ways to maintain a clean and pleasant earth.
She became the de facto leader of the scenic conservation movement.
She raised our consciousness about the natural world in our lives. It
is fair to say she is probably the most influential conservationist in
America since Teddy Roosevelt.
When I visit my wife's home in the State of Texas in the spring,
there are bluebonnets everywhere. Texans are immensely proud of those
flowers. In Austin--and Luci Baines reminded me today it is still going
stronger than ever--is the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center.
Many States copied Texas' idea of planting wildflowers in the
interstate medians. Lady Bird and Lyndon passed the Highway
Beautification Act to free us from highway billboard blight and rampant
ugliness.
With her encouragement, President Johnson also persuaded Congress to
pass the Wilderness Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. She became the first woman to serve on
the National Geographic Society's board of trustees.
President Johnson used to joke about how he would turn around and
there would be Laurence Rockefeller and Lady Bird in the East Room of
the White House cooking up some new conservation agenda for him to pass
in the Congress.
Her legacy of natural beauty is secure, but because she is now gone,
America's legacy of natural beauty is not so secure. We seem to have
forgotten how much natural beauty is an essential part of our national
character. Someone once said: Egypt has its Pyramids, Italy its Art,
and our country the Great American Outdoors. Or, to put it less
grandly, when I am at home in Tennessee, I see the streets named Scenic
Drive and Blue Bird Lane, and I read the real estate ads describing the
beautiful mountain views. And, if you ask Tennesseans why they live in
Tennessee, even the most grizzled will say:
[[Page 10130]]
Because there is not a more beautiful place in the world.
Many Americans feel that way about our hometowns. After Lady Bird,
there have come a number of stronger and more outstanding environmental
organizations devoted to clean air, clean water, and climate change,
and more recently, other conservation causes. But most of them seem to
have diminished interest in scenic beauty.
There was recently on the Senate floor an effort that nearly
succeeded to gut Lady Bird's Highway Beautification Act. It would have
allowed hundreds of illegal billboards to become legal. There has been
almost no organized outcry about the profusion of thousands of cell
towers along the same interstates and in the same communities that Lady
Bird sought to protect from junkyards and billboards. These cell towers
have replaced almost every available scenic view in America with a tall
tower, usually ugly, always with blinking lights. And, most of it is
unnecessary because they could have been co-located, or be smaller, or
they could have been put below the ridge tops, or even camouflaged. And
we still could have had access to our cell phones and our blackberries.
The National Park Service even erected a cell tower in clear view of
Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park.
In our enthusiasm to deal with climate change, we are spending
billions of dollars to encourage Americans to erect thousands of giant
wind turbines that are twice as tall as football stadiums and can be
seen for 20 miles, without thinking to pass legislation that would keep
them away from our most scenic views, beaches, and mountaintops.
If Ansel Adams were alive today, he would probably be distraught
because he would have fewer and fewer beautiful places in America at
which to aim his camera.
Lady Bird left America a legacy that honors an essential aspect of
the American character, one that today is, unfortunately, too often
ignored. If it continues to be ignored, it will never be undone. It is
almost impossible to unclutter a highway or renew a view scape once
that has been obliterated by ugliness.
So, I would hope that one result of this commemoration of Lyndon
Johnson's birthday would be to encourage someone among us--or more
among us--to revive in us Lady Bird's passion for the natural beauty of
America, to encourage once again the planting of wildflowers, to
preserve the view scapes, and to remind American communities of how
satisfying it can be to live in one of the most beautiful places in the
world.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson has always been a personal
hero to me. Every time I find myself in Austin, TX, I make a visit to
the LBJ Library. Only for me, it is not a trip, it is more of a
pilgrimage. I have been to that library so many times I think I could
conduct a blindfolded tour by now.
I was just there a couple months ago. My favorite place in that
library, of course, is the Great Society Room, with the plaques on the
wall listing the incredible array of legislation and programs that
Lyndon Johnson passed into law. You go down it and you read them all:
the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Job Corps, VISTA, Upward
Bound, the Food Stamp Program, legal services for the poor, the
Community Action Program, Community Health Centers, Head Start, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act,
Medicare, Medicaid, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities,
public broadcasting, the National Mass Transportation Act, the
Cigarette Labeling Act, the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act--Mr.
President, it takes your breath away when you look at what this one
person, with a Congress, was able to accomplish.
So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the
``failure'' of the Great Society. Yes, the ``failure'' of the Great
Society. At least that is what I have been hearing ever since I first
started running for office in 1972 and 1974, coming to the House, and
then to the Senate. All those years I have heard from most of my
friends on the other side of the aisle and the conservatives what a
great ``failure'' the Great Society was. In fact, this supposed
``failure'' has become an article of faith among conservatives.
As President Reagan said on May 9, 1983:
The great expansion of government programs that took place
under the aegis of the Great Society coincided with an end to
economic progress for America's poor people.
So I thought I would come to the floor today to discuss the
``failures'' of the Great Society. Well, I wonder where to start. But I
suppose a good place to start is with the great Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Think about it. Prior to that act, African Americans faced brazen
discrimination and segregation--the American version of apartheid. In
many parts of our country, African Americans could not eat in the same
restaurants or at the same lunch counters as Whites. They could not use
the same bathrooms, the same swimming pools, the same water fountains,
the same motels, the same hotels. They literally were consigned, as we
know, to the back of the bus.
Well, because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Lyndon Johnson's
championship of it, those Jim Crow laws and practices were ended in the
United States of America. It became illegal to discriminate based on
race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Now we take it for
granted that people of color, different nationalities, different
religions are seen in our parks and playgrounds, our libraries, our
swimming pools, our sports arenas, our motels and hotels, but it was
not so long ago that this was not so. Hardly a ``failure.''
Another ``failure'' of the Great Society, of course, the Medicare
Program. Let's take a look at that. At the bill signing ceremony on
July 30, 1965, President Johnson enrolled former President Harry Truman
as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first
Medicare card.
We always talk about life after age 65 as the ``golden years.'' For
many, prior to Medicare, life at 65 used to be the ``nightmare
years''--with tens of millions of Americans unable to even afford basic
medical care, condemned to living out their senior years in the misery
of untreated or poorly treated illnesses or diseases.
Here, Mr. President, I want to get personal. See, my father, Patrick
Harkin, was 54 years old when I was born. My father had an eighth grade
education. Most of it he spent as a coal miner. Now, most people don't
think there are coal mines outside of Pennsylvania or West Virginia,
but Iowa at one time was the second largest coal-producing State in the
Nation. Young kids who didn't go to school went to the coal mines. So
my father worked for the greater part of more than 20 years in the coal
mines. Later on in life, he suffered what they called then the miner's
cough, which we now know is black lung disease.
My mother died when I was 10. My father was just about 65, and he had
paid enough in, in the 1940s, to qualify for Social Security. So he had
Social Security. He had three kids under the age of 18 and no money. He
lived in this little two-bedroom house out in the middle of smalltown
Iowa. But we had Social Security that kept us together. But I can
remember it was like clockwork: Every year, every winter, my father
would get sick. He had this miner's cough, and usually in the winter it
would get worse and he would come down with pneumonia or something like
that. Since we didn't have a car, one of my cousins or someone--and my
father did not want to go to the hospital because we didn't have any
money. He wouldn't see a doctor because we didn't have money. So one of
my cousins or somebody would come over, and he would finally get so
sick he couldn't stand it, and they would rush him to Mercy Hospital in
Des Moines. Thank God for the sisters of mercy at Mercy Hospital. They
would nurse him back to health, get him OK, send him back home. This
happened
[[Page 10131]]
like clockwork every winter. My father was always bothered by it. He
was proud. He didn't like to accept charity. Heck, if left to his own
devices, he probably would have died a long time before then because he
just wouldn't have accepted that kind of medical care.
I can remember coming home on leave from the Navy for Christmas 1965.
Now, I hadn't been paying too much attention--I was just trying to keep
alive, so I wasn't paying too much attention to legislation and things
such as that. I didn't mark the passage of the Medicare bill. I didn't
know it even happened. As I said, I was just in the military doing my
thing. But I can remember coming home on that Christmas break and
seeing my dad, and he showed me his Medicare card. Now he could get
medical care. He could go to the doctor. He could go and get taken care
of before he got so sick he had to go to the hospital every time. You
can't imagine what this was like for him. You see, he felt he had
earned this through a lifetime of hard work, working for our country,
raising a family. This was not charity. He had earned this. It was part
of his Social Security.
So when someone tells me about Medicare, part of the ``failures'' of
a great society--hardly a ``failure.'' I wonder why there aren't more
people out here rushing to introduce bills to repeal it if it is such a
great ``failure.'' It has saved so many people in our country, such as
my father, who lived out the remainder of his years in a little bit
better health because of Medicare. So it is very personal with me.
Another ``failure'' of the Great Society was the Higher Education
Act. In 1965, it was rare for young people from disadvantaged and low-
income backgrounds to go to college. The only way I got there is I had
an NROTC scholarship because of the Navy. That was the only way I was
able to go to college. So President Johnson passed the Higher Education
Act, creating work-study programs, loans with reduced interest rates,
scholarships, opening the door to college for tens of millions of
Americans to have access to the American dream--again, hardly a
``failure''.
In August 1964, Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Food Stamp Act.
Prior to that act, hunger was shockingly widespread in America,
especially in Appalachia and rural parts of our country and in our
inner cities. Thanks to the Food Stamp Program, hunger in America is
rare. Tens of millions of Americans--more than half of them children--
are ensured a basic nutritional minimum thanks to this program. The
farm bill we just passed, with the Presiding Officer's help in getting
it passed, expanded the Food Stamp Program. It took out some of the
barriers to access, so families in America can get more access for
their families and their kids.
In the State of the Union Address in 1988, President Reagan said that
the Great Society ``declared war on poverty and poverty won.'' He said
this in the State of the Union Address. It is another Reagan myth. Look
at the facts. Look at the data. From 1963 until 1970, during the impact
of the Great Society programs, the number of Americans living below the
poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent. The poverty
rate for African Americans fell from 55 percent to 27 percent. The
poverty rate among the elderly fell by two-thirds. This is an amazing
success.
What is unfortunate is that the poverty rate has not fallen
significantly since 1970. Our progress has been stalled. Indeed, in the
last few years, the gap between the rich and the poor in this country
has grown dramatically. So we need a new generation of American leaders
committed to reducing the gap. We need a new generation of leaders with
Lyndon Johnson's passion and commitment to fighting poverty and hunger
and homelessness and inequality and discrimination.
Any fairminded observer would say that LBJ's Great Society was far
from a ``failure;'' it was a monumental success. The Great Society
programs defined the modern United States of America as a
compassionate, inclusive society, a genuine opportunistic society where
everyone can contribute their talents and abilities. The Great Society
is very much the living legacy of our 36th President. We see the Great
Society today in cleaner air and water, young people from poor
backgrounds going to college, seniors and poor people having access to
decent medical care, and people of color exercising their right to vote
and live in the neighborhood of their choice. We see the Great Society
in Head Start, quality public schools, vocational education, college
grants and loans--all those rungs on the ladder that people need to
achieve the American dream, even those from humble, hardscrabble
backgrounds, such as Lyndon Johnson himself or this Senator from Iowa.
Americans have a tendency to take for granted the achievements of the
Great Society. But just imagine an America without Medicare, without
the Civil Rights Act, without the Voting Rights Act, without title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, without Head Start, without
community health centers, without vocational education. I could go on
and on. It would truly be a greatly diminished America, a less secure
America, a less just America. And without the great companionship of
Lady Bird Johnson, it would be a less beautiful America.
I know the Johnson family is here today, including Linda Bird, Lucy
Baines, and their families, and many close friends and colleagues of
President Johnson and members of his administration. I thank them for
keeping the LBJ legacy alive and not letting it become invisible.
Before I close, let me quote from a small part of a speech that was
given by Joseph Califano just this Monday at a luncheon here in
Washington commemorating the legacy of Lyndon Johnson. Obviously we all
remember Joe Califano being Lyndon Johnson's Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Listen to what he said:
Of even greater danger to our Nation, by making the
presidency of Lyndon Johnson invisible, we lose key lessons
for our democracy--courage counts and government can work--
and it can work to the benefit of the least among us in ways
that enhance the well-being of all of us.
I can think of no sentence that sums up the legacy of Lyndon Baines
Johnson better than that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full speech of
Joseph Califano printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as every truly great leader in our
Nation's history, Lyndon Johnson brought us a giant step closer to
achieving our highest ideals. He fought passionately for social and
economic justice for all Americans. He fought to put the American dream
within reach of every citizen. That is the legacy we salute today. That
is truly the success--and not the ``failure''--of the Great Society.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Seeing Is Believing:
The Enduring Legacy of Lyndon Johnson
(Keynote Address by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., May 19, 2008)
For many in this room, Lyndon Johnson's Centennial is a
time for personal memories. We remember how LBJ drove
himself--and many of us--to use every second of his
presidency. We remember his five a.m. wake-up calls asking
about a front page story in the New York Times--the edition
that had not yet been delivered to our home; his insatiable
appetite for a program to cure every ill he saw; his
insistence that every call from a member of Congress be
returned on the day it was received--even if it meant running
the member down in a barroom, bathroom or bedroom; his
insistence that hearings begin one day after we sent a bill
to Congress; his pressure to get more seniors enrolled in
Medicare, more blacks registered to vote, more schools
desegregated, more kids signed up for Head Start, more
Mexican-Americans taking college scholarships or loans; more
billboards torn down faster--for the country, and for Lady
Bird.
And we remember his signature admonition: ``Do it now. Not
next week. Not tomorrow. Not later today. Now.''
We who served him saw that Lyndon Johnson could be brave
and brutal, compassionate and cruel, incredibly intelligent
and infuriatingly stubborn. We came to know his shrewd and
uncanny instinct for the jugular of both allies and
adversaries. We learned he
[[Page 10132]]
could be altruistic and petty, caring and crude, generous and
petulant, bluntly honest and calculatingly devious--all
within the same few minutes. We saw his determination to
succeed run over or around whoever or whatever got in his
way.
As allies and enemies alike slumped in exhaustion, we saw
how LBJ's relentless zeal produced second, third and fourth
bursts of energy--to mount a massive social revolution that
gave new hope to the disadvantaged. As he did so, he often
created a record that Machiavelli might not only recognize,
but also envy. To him, the enormous popularity of his
unprecedented landslide victory, and every event during his
presidency--triumphant or tragic--were opportunities to give
the most vulnerable among us a fair shot of the nation's
abundant blessings.
We saw these things. But somehow the world beyond--and even
the people of his own party--seem not to see.
Throughout this year, and last week in endorsing Barack
Obama, John Edwards made reducing poverty a centerpiece of
his presidential campaign. Yet he never mentioned Lyndon
Johnson, the first--and only--President ever to declare war
on poverty and sharply reduce it.
A few weeks ago in his eloquent victory speech in Raleigh,
North Carolina, Barack Obama followed a familiar pattern of
omission. In recounting the achievements of previous
Democratic presidents, he mentioned the pantheon of FDR,
Harry Truman, JFK--but not LBJ. Not Lyndon Johnson--not the
man who would be proudest of Barack Obama's candidacy and
what it says about America, the president uniquely
responsible for the laws that gave this man (and millions of
others) the opportunity to develop and display his talents
and gave this nation the opportunity to benefit from them.
Earlier in the campaign, when Hillary Clinton publicly
noted that ``it took a President'' to translate Martin Luther
King's moral protests into public laws, she broke the taboo
and mentioned President Johnson. The New York Times promptly
rebuked her in an editorial for daring to speak that name--
and instantly things went back to normal: Lyndon Johnson was
put back in his place as the invisible President of the
twentieth century.
The reason, of course, goes back to Vietnam. The tragedy of
Vietnam has created a dark cloud obscuring the full picture
of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.
Without downplaying in any way the tragedy of the Vietnam
war, I am convinced that to make Lyndon Johnson the invisible
President--particularly for Democrats to indulge such amnesia
as politically correct--is unfair not so much to him, but to
our nation and its future.
Why? Because if we make Lyndon Johnson's whole presidency
invisible--if we are unable or unwilling to speak his name--
we become less able to talk about the lasting achievements of
this nation's progressive tradition--a tradition that spans
both parties over the last century. If we are unable or
unwilling to see this President, we break the chain of
history and deny our people an understanding of the
remarkable resilience of progressive tradition from Theodore
Roosevelt, through Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's New
Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal and John Kennedy's New
Frontier, to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Of even greater danger to our nation, by making the
presidency of Lyndon Johnson invisible, we lose key lessons
for our democracy: courage counts and government can work--
and it can work to the benefit of the least among us in ways
that enhance the well-being of all of us. Think about this:
Americans under 40 have seen in Washington only governments
that were anti-government, corrupt, mired in scandal, inept,
gridlocked, driven by polls, favored the rich and powerful,
or tied in knots by Lilliputian lobbyists and partisan
bickering.
Talk to many Americans today about Washington and they're
likely to say: it doesn't work; it doesn't care; it doesn't
understand my problems; the special interests control it.
Tell an American that Washington can work, it can help them,
and they react like doubting Thomas: I won't believe it till
I see it.
That's the political reality of our skeptical times: seeing
is believing.
So as we begin our observance of this centennial in this
critical political year, here is the question: Do we want to
rekindle support for progressive ideas, for a modem
progressive movement? If so, if we hope to restore belief in
a government that serves and lifts up the many as well as the
few, if we want to make government work again, then we must
see our history more clearly and tell it more completely. We
must see the full vision and achievement of Lyndon Johnson's
presidency, the domestic revolution that he not only
conceived, but carried out. Failure to do so not only
distorts our past, it short changes our future. For there is
a connection between seeing and believing--and also between
seeing and achieving.
We live in an era of political micro-achievement. In recent
years, it is considered an accomplishment when a President
persuades Congress to pass one bill, or a few, over an entire
administration: one welfare reform; one No Child Left Behind.
Partisan attacks and political ambition choke our airways,
not reports of legislation passed or problems solved.
What a contrast. In those tumultuous Great Society years,
the President submitted, and Congress enacted, more than one
hundred major proposals in each of the 89th and 90th
Congresses. In those years of do-it-now optimism,
presidential speeches were about distributing prosperity more
fairly, reshaping the balance between the consumer and big
business, rebuilding entire cities, eliminating poverty,
hunger and discrimination in our nation. And when the
speeches ended, action followed, problems were tackled,
ameliorated and solved. This nation did reduce poverty. We
did broaden opportunity for college and jobs. We did outlaw
segregation and discrimination in housing. We did guarantee
the right to vote to all. We did improve health and
prosperity for older Americans. We did put the environment on
the national agenda.
When Lyndon Johnson took office, only eight percent of
Americans held college degrees; by the end of 2006, twenty-
eight percent had completed college. His Higher Education
legislation with its scholarships, grants and work-study
programs opened college to any American with the necessary
brains and ambition, however empty the family purse. Since
1965 the federal government has provided more than 360
billion dollars to provide 166 million grants, loans and work
study awards to college students. Today six out of ten
college students receive federal financial aid under Great
Society programs and their progeny.
Below the college level, LBJ passed the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, for the first time committing the
federal government to help local schools. By last year, that
program had infused 552 billion dollars into elementary and
high schools. He anticipated the needs of Hispanics and other
immigrants with bilingual education, which today serves four
million children in some 40 languages. His special education
law has helped millions of children with learning
disabilities.
Then there is Head Start, To date, more than 24 million
pre-schoolers have been through Head Start programs in nearly
every city and county in the nation. Head Start today serves
one million children a year.
If LBJ had not established the federal government's
responsibility to finance this educational surge, would we
have the trained human resources today to function in a
fiercely competitive global economy? Would we have developed
the technology that leads the world's computing and
communications revolution?
Seeing is believing.
In 1964, most elderly Americans had no health insurance.
Few retirement plans provided any such coverage. The poor had
little access to medical treatment until they were in
critical condition, Only wealthier Americans could get the
finest care, and then only by traveling to a few big cities
like Boston or New York.
Consider the changes Johnson wrought. Since 1965, some 112
million Americans have been covered by Medicare; in 2006, 43
million were enrolled. In 1967, Medicaid served 10 million
poor citizens; in 2006, it served 63 million people. The
program is widely regarded as the key factor in reducing
infant mortality by seventy-five percent--from 26 deaths for
each 1,000 live births when Johnson took office to less than
seven per 1,000 live births in 2004.
The Heart, Cancer and Stroke legislation has provided funds
to create centers of medical excellence in just about every
major city--from Seattle to Houston, Miami to Cleveland,
Atlanta to Minneapolis. To staff these centers, the Health
Professions Educational Assistance Act provided resources to
double the number of doctors graduating from medical schools
and increase the pool of specialists, researchers, nurses and
paramedics.
Without these programs and Great Society investments in the
National Institutes of Health, would our nation be the
world's leader in medical research? In pharmaceutical
invention? In creation of surgical procedures and medical
machinery to diagnose our diseases, breathe for us, clean our
blood, transplant our organs, scan our brains? In the
discovery of ingenious prosthetic devices that enable so many
of our severely wounded soldiers to function independently?
Seeing is believing.
Closely related to LBJ's Great Society health programs were
his initiatives to reduce malnutrition and hunger. Today, the
Food Stamp program helps feed some 27 million men, women and
children in 12 million households. The School Breakfast
program has served more than 30 billion breakfasts to needy
children.
Seeing is believing.
It is not too much to say that Lyndon Johnson's programs
created a stunning recasting of America's demographic
profile. When President Johnson took office, life expectancy
was 66.6 years for men and 73.1 years for women. Forty years
later, by 2004, life expectancy had stretched to 75 years for
men and 80 years for women. The jump was most dramatic among
poor citizens--suggesting that better nutrition and access to
[[Page 10133]]
health care have played an even larger role than medical
advances.
For almost half a century, the nation's immigration laws
established restrictive and discriminatory quotas that
favored blond and blue-eyed Western Europeans. With the
Immigration Reform Act of 1965, LBJ scrapped that quota
system and put substance behind the Statue of Liberty's
welcoming words, ``Give me your tired your poor, your huddled
masses yearning to breathe free.'' This Great Society
legislation refreshed our nation with the revitalizing
energies of immigrants from southern and Eastern Europe,
south of the border, Asia and Africa, converting America into
the most multi-cultural nation in the history of the world
and uniquely positioning our population for the Twenty-First
century world of new economic powers. In the year before
Immigration reform was passed, only 2,600 immigrants were
admitted from Africa, less than 25,000 from Asia and 105,000
from Central and South America. With the lifting of the
quotas, in 2006, 110,000 immigrants were admitted from
Africa, more than 400,000 from Asia and 525,000 from Central
and South America. I can't see LBJ eating at an Ethiopian or
Sushi restaurant, but I can see him tapping into the
intellectual acumen, diversity and energy of this new wave of
immigrants.
Seeing is believing.
Lyndon Johnson put civil rights and social justice squarely
before the nation as a moral issue. Recalling his year as a
teacher of poor Mexican children in Cotulla, Texas, he once
told Congress, ``It never even occurred to me in my fondest
dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and
daughters of those students and to help people like them all
over this country. But now I do have that chance--and I'll
let you in on a secret--I mean to use it.''
And use it he did. He used it to make Washington confront
the needs of the nation as no president before or since has.
With the 1964 Civil Rights Act Johnson tore down, all at
once, the ``Whites only'' signs and social system that
featured segregated hotels, restaurants, movie theaters,
toilets and water fountains, and rampant job discrimination.
The following year he proposed the Voting Rights Act. When
it passed in the summer of 1965, Martin Luther King told
Johnson, ``You have created a second emancipation.'' The
President replied, ``The real hero is the American Negro.''
How I wish that Lyndon Johnson were alive today to see what
his laws have wrought--especially the Voting Rights Act that
he considered the most precious gem among the Great Society
jewels.
In 1964 there were 79 black elected officials in the South
and 300 in the entire nation. By 2001 (the latest information
available) there were some 10,000 elected black officials
across the nation, more than 6,000 of them in the South. In
1965 there were five black members of the House; today there
are 42 and the black member of the Senate is headed for the
Democratic presidential nomination.
Seeing is believing.
But LBJ knew that laws were not enough. Thus was born the
concept of affirmative action. Johnson's conviction that it
is essential as a matter of social justice to provide the
tutoring, the extra help, even the preference if necessary,
to those who had suffered generations of discrimination in
order to give them a fair chance to share in the American
dream.
LBJ set the pace personally. He appointed the first black
Supreme Court Justice (Thurgood Marshall), the first black
cabinet officer (Robert Weaver) and the first black member of
the Federal Reserve Board (Andrew Britmmer). He knew that if
executives and institutions across the private sector saw
qualified blacks succeeding in positions of high
responsibility, barriers across America would fall--because
for them, he knew, seeing was believing.
Less known, and largely ignored, was Johnson's similar
campaign to place women in top government positions. The
tapes reveal him hectoring cabinet officers to place women in
top jobs. He created what one feminist researcher called in
her book, Women, Work and National Policy, ``An affirmative
action reporting system for women, surely the first of its
kind . . . in the White House. . . .'' LBJ proposed and
signed legislation to provide, for the first time, equal
opportunity in promotions for women in the Armed Forces.
Signing the bill in 1967, Johnson noted, ``The bill does not
create any female generals or female admirals--but it does
make that possible. There is no reason why we should not
someday have a female chief of staff or even a female
Commander in Chief.''
LBJ had his heart in his War on Poverty. Though he found
the opposition too strong to pass an income maintenance law,
he took advantage of the biggest ATM around: Social Security.
He proposed, and Congress enacted, whopping increases in the
minimum benefit. That change alone lifted 2.5 million
Americans 65 and over above the poverty line. Today, Social
Security keeps some thirteen million senior citizens above
the poverty line. Many scholars look at Social Security and
that increase. Medicare and the coverage of nursing home care
under Medicaid (which funds care for more than 64 percent of
nursing home residents) as the most significant social
programs of the Twentieth Century.
Seeing is believing.
Johnson's relationship with his pet project--the Office of
Economic Opportunity--was that of a proud father often
irritated by an obstreperous child- For years conservatives
have ranted about the OEO programs. Yet Johnson's War on
Poverty was founded on the most conservative principle: put
the power in the local community, not in Washington; give
people at the grassroots the ability to walk off the public
dole.
Today, as we celebrate LBJ's 100th anniversary some forty
years after he left office, eleven of the twelve programs
that OEO launched are alive, well and funded at an annual
rate exceeding eleven billion dollars. Head Stan, Job Corps,
Community Health Centers, Foster Grandparents. Upward Bound
(now part of the Trio Program in the Department of
Education), Green Thumb (now Senior Community Service
Employment), Indian Opportunities (now in the Labor
Department), and Migrant Opportunities (now Seasonal Worker
Training and Migrant Education) are all helping people stand
on their own two feet.
Community Action (now the Community Service Block Grant
program), VISTA Volunteers and Legal Services are putting
power in the hands of individuals--down at the grassroots.
The grassroots that these programs fertilize just don't
produce the manicured laws that conservatives prefer. Of all
the Great Society programs started in the Office of Economic
Opportunity, only the Neighborhood Youth Corps has been
abandoned--in 1974, after enrolling more than 5 million
individuals.
Ronald Reagan quipped that Lyndon Johnson declared war on
poverty and poverty won. He was wrong. When LBJ took office,
22.2 percent of Americans were living in poverty. When he
left five years later, only 13 percent were living below the
poverty line--the greatest one-time reduction in poverty in
our nation's history.
Seeing is believing.
Since Lyndon Johnson left the White House, no president has
been able to effect any significant reductions in poverty. In
2006 the poverty level stood at 12.3 percent. Hillary Clinton
in her presidential campaign has promised to create a cabinet
level poverty czar in her administration. In the
administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the President was
the poverty czar.
Theodore Roosevelt launched the modern environmental
movement by setting aside public lands and national parks and
giving voice to conservation leaders like Gifford Pinchot. If
Teddy Roosevelt launched the movement, Lyndon Johnson drove
it forward more than any later President--and in the process,
in 1965, he introduced an entirely new concept of
conservation:
``We must not only protect the countryside and save it from
destruction;'' he said, ``we must restore what has been
destroyed and salvage the beauty and charm of our cities. Our
conservation must be not just the classic conservation of
protection and development, but a creative conservation of
restoration and innovation.''
That new environmental commandment spelled out the first
inconvenient truth: that those who reap the rewards of modem
technology must also pay the price of their industrial
pollution. It inspired a legion of Great Society laws: the
Clean Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and
Amendments, the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act, the 1965 Motor
Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, the 1968 Aircraft Noise
Abatement Act. It also provided the rationale for later laws
creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Superfund.
Johnson created 35 National Parks, 32 within easy driving
distance of large cities. The 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
today protects 165 river segments in 38 states and Puerto
Rico. The 1968 National Trail System Act has established more
than 1,000 recreation, scenic and historic trails covering
close to 55,000 miles. No wonder National Geographic calls
Lyndon Johnson ``our greatest conservation president.''
Seeing is believing.
These were major areas of concentration for Lyndon
Johnson's Great Society, but there were many others. Indeed,
looking back, the sweep of this President's achievements is
breathtaking.
Those of us who worked with Lyndon Johnson would hardly
consider him a patron of the arts. I can't even remember him
sitting through more than ten or fifteen minutes of a movie
in the White House theatre, much less listening to an
operatic aria or classical symphony.
Yet the historian Irving Bernstein. in his book on The
Presidency of Lyndon Johnson, titles a chapter. ``Lyndon
Johnson, Patron of the Arts.'' Think about it. What would
cultural life in America be like without the Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts, where each year two million visitors
view performances that millions more watch on television, or
without the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden that
attracts 750,000 visitors annually? Both are Great Society
initiatives.
The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are
fulfilling a dream Johnson
[[Page 10134]]
expressed when he asked Congress to establish them and, for
the first time, to provide federal financial support for the
Arts to increase ``the access of our people to the works of
our artists, and [recognize] the arts as part of the pursuit
of American greatness.''
LBJ used to say that he wanted fine theater and music
available throughout the nation and not just on Broadway and
at the Metropolitan Opera in New York. In awarding more than
130,000 grants totaling more than four billion dollars since
1965, the Endowment for the Arts has spawned art councils in
all 50 states and more than 1,400 professional theater
companies, 120 opera companies, 600 dance companies and 1,800
professional orchestras. Since 1965, the Endowment for the
Humanities has awarded 65,000 fellowships and grants totaling
more than four billion dollars.
Johnson established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
to create public television and public radio which have given
the nation countless hours of fine arts, superb in-depth news
coverage, and programs like ``Sesame Street'' and
``Masterpiece Theater.'' Now some say there is no need for
public radio and television, with so many cable channels and
radio stations. But as often as you surf with your TV remote
or twist your radio dial, you are not likely to find the kind
of quality broadcasting that marks the more than 350 public
television and nearly 700 public radio stations that the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports today. They, as
well as the rest of the media, have been helped by the
Freedom of Information Act, the Great Society's contribution
to greater transparency in government.
Seeing is believing. So is listening.
For urban America, LBJ drove through Congress the Urban
Mass Transit Act, which gave San Franciscans BART,
Washingtonians Metro, Atlantans MARTA, and cities across
America thousands of buses and modernized transit systems.
His 1968 Housing Act, creation of Ginnie Mae, privatization
of Fannie Mae and establishment of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development have helped some 75 million families
gain access to affordable housing.
In the progressive tradition in which Theodore Roosevelt
and Franklin Roosevelt confronted huge financial and
corporate enterprises, Johnson faced a nationalization of
commercial power that had the potential to disadvantage the
individual American consumer. Super-corporations were shoving
aside the corner grocer, local banker, independent drug store
and family farmer. Automobiles were complex and dangerous,
manufactured by giant corporations with deep pockets to
protect themselves. Banks had the most sophisticated
accountants and lawyers to draft their loan agreements.
Sellers of everyday products--soaps, produce, meats,
appliances, clothing, cereal and canned and frozen foods--
packaged their products with the help of the shrewdest
marketers and designers. The individual was outflanked at
every position.
Seeing that mismatch, Johnson pushed through Congress a
bevy of laws to level the playing filed for consumers: Auto
and highway safety for the motorist a Department of
Transportation and National Transportation Safety Board;
truth in packaging for the housewife; truth in lending for
the homebuyer, small businessman and individual borrower;
wholesome meat and wholesome poultry laws to enhance food
safety; the Flammable Fabrics Act to reduce the incendiary
characteristics of clothing and blankets. He created the
Product Safety Commission to assure that toys and other
products would be safe for users. When he got over his
annoyance that it took him five minutes to find me in the
emergency room of George Washington University Hospital, with
my three year old son Joe who had swallowed a bottle of
aspirin, he proposed the Child Safety Act which is why we all
have such difficulty opening up medicine bottles.
Seeing is believing.
By the numbers the legacy of Lyndon Johnson is monumental.
It exceeds in domestic impact even the New Deal of his idol
Franklin Roosevelt. It sets him at the cutting edge of the
nation's progressive tradition. But there is also an
important story behind these programs that speaks to the
future--that offers the lessons of what it takes to be an
effective President. What lessons does this President have
for our nation and his successors, especially those who value
the progressive tradition?
First, Lyndon Johnson was a genuine, true believing
revolutionary.
His Texas constituency and the tactical constraints of his
earlier offices reined him in before he became President. But
his experiences--teaching poor Mexican American children in
Corolla, Texas, working as Texas director of Roosevelt's
National Youth Administration, witnessing the indignities
that his black cook, Zephyr Wright, and her husband Gene
Williams, suffered during his senate years when they drove
from Washington to Texas through the segregated south--fueled
his revolutionary spirit.
He saw racial justice as a moral issue. He refused to
accept pockets of poverty in the richest nation in history.
He saw a nation so hell bent on industrial growth and
amassing wealth that greed threatened to destroy its natural
resources. He saw cities deteriorating and municipal
political machines unresponsive to the early migration of
Hispanics and the masses of blacks moving north. To him
government was neither a bad man to be tarred and feathered
nor a bag man to collect campaign contributions. To him
government was not a bystander, hoping wealth and opportunity
might trickle down to the least among us. To LBJ, government
was a mighty wrench to open the fountain of opportunity so
that everyone could bathe in the shower of our nation's
blessings. He wanted his government to provide the poor with
the kind of education, health and social support that most of
us get from our parents.
Second, Lyndon Johnson was perpetually impatient,
relentlessly restless, always in a hurry.
Andrew Marvell's words could have been written for him:
``But at my back I always hear/Time's winged chariot,
hurrying near.'' Lyndon Johnson saw himself in a desperate
race against time as he fought to remedy the damage slavery
and generations of prejudice had inflicted on black
Americans. Why? Because he feared that, once black Americans
sensed the prospect of a better life, the discrimination they
had once accepted as inevitable would become intolerable;
they would erupt--and, subvert their own cause. ``Hell,'' he
said to me during some of those eruptions, ``Sometimes when I
think of what they've been through, I don't blame them.''
He saw himself in a race against time as he sized up
Congress, political reality and attitudes of affluent
Americans. LBJ knew that he must use--now!--the sympathy
generated by John Kennedy's assassination and the huge margin
of his own election victory in 1964. He knew that his
political capital--no matter how gigantic in the early days
of his presidency--was a dwindling asset.
Third, Lyndon Johnson was a man of extraordinary courage.
For me the greatest price our nation pays for our
collective blindness is this: By rendering LBJ invisible we
lose sight, for the future, of how much a truly courageous
political leader can accomplish.
Sure, LBJ had the politician's hunger to be loved. But,
more than that, he had the courage to fall on his sword if
that's what it took to move the nation forward. He did just
that when, in an extraordinary act of abnegation, he withdrew
from the political arena to calm the roiling seas of strife
and end the war in Vietnam.
To me no greater example of Presidential political courage
exists than Lyndon Johnson's commitment in the area of civil
rights. He fought for racial equality even when it hurt him
and clobbered his party in the South.
After signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Johnson was
defeated in five southern states, four of them states that
Democrats had not lost for 80 years.
Still he kept on. In 1965 he drove the Voting Rights Act
through Congress. In 1966, he proposed the Fair Housing Act
to end discrimination in housing. His proposal prompted the
most vitriolic mail we received at the White House, and
Congress refused to act on the bill that year.
In the November 1966 mid-term elections, the Democrats lost
a whopping forty-seven seats in the House and three in the
Senate. Border and southern state governors met with the
President at his ranch in December. In a nasty assault on his
civil rights policies, they demanded that he withdraw his
fair housing proposal and curb his efforts to desegregate
schools.
Undeterred, in 1968, he drove the Fair Housing Act through
the senate--tragically it took Dr. King's assassination to
give Johnson the leverage he needed to convince the House to
pass it.
You have to see political courage like that to believe it.
I was fortunate to see it close up. I want our people and
future leaders to be able to see it.
Fourth, Lyndon Johnson knew how to use power.
Johnson married his revolutionary zeal, impatience and
courage to a phenomenal sense of how to use power
skillfully--to exploit a mandate, to corral votes, to reach
across the aisle in order to move this nation, its people and
the Congress forward.
Lyndon Johnson felt entitled to every lever, to help from
every person, every branch of government, every business,
labor and religious leader. After all. as he often reminded
us, he was the only President we had. He had no inhibitions
in reaching out for advice, ideas, talent, power, support. He
often saw traditions of separation of powers. or an
independent press, or a profit-minded corporate executive, as
obstacles, to be put aside in deference to the greater
national interest as he defined it. He was brilliantly
opportunistic, calling upon the nation and the Congress in
the wake of even the most horrific tragedies--the
assassinations of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King--to
bring a new measure of social justice to all Americans.
He knew how to harness the power of the protestors and the
media to tap into the inherent fairness of the American
people. He asked Martin Luther King in January 1965 to help
with the Voting Rights Act by ``getting your leaders and you
yourself . . . . to find the worst condition [of voting
discrimination] that you run into in Alabama . . . . and
[[Page 10135]]
get it on radio, get it on television, get it on--in the
pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it every place you can .
. . . and then that will help us on what we are going to
shove through in the end.'' He loved King's choice of Selma,
Alabama. He knew, as he told Dr. King, that when the American
people saw the unfairness of the voting practices there, they
would come around to supporting his bill. And they did.
He offers a defining lesson in the importance of mustering
bipartisan support. These Great Society proposals were
cutting edge, controversial initiatives and LBJ assiduously
courted Republican members of congress to support them. His
instructions to us on the White House staff were to accord
Senate Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen and House
minority leader Gerald Ford the same courtesies we extended
to Senate Majority leader Mike Mansfield and House Speaker
John McCormack. It was not only that he needed Republican
votes to pass bills like the civil rights, health, education
and consumer laws: he saw bipartisan support as an essential
foundation on which to build lasting commitment among the
American people. He knew that the endurance of his
legislative achievements, and their enthusiastic acceptance
by state and local governments, powerful private interests
and individual citizens across the nation, required such
bipartisan support.
He didn't accomplish all he wanted. He called ``the welfare
system in America outmoded and in need of major change'' and
pressed Congress to create ``a work incentive program,
incentives for earning, day care for children, child and
maternal health and family planning services.''
He saw the threat posed by the spread of guns and proposed
national registration of all gulls and national licensing of
all gun owners. Congress rejected his proposals. But he did
convince Capitol Hill to close the loophole of mail order
guns, prohibit sales to minors, and end the import of
Saturday night specials.
He tried, unsuccessfully, to get expand Medicare to cover
pre-natal care and children through age six, and used to say,
``If we can get that, future presidents and Congresses can
close the gap between six and sixty-five.''
He spotted the ``for sale'' signs of political corruption
going up in the nation's capital and called for public
financing of campaigns.
Our nation and its leaders pay a heavy price when such a
towering figure--among the most towering political figures of
American history--becomes at the same time America's
invisible president. In this year, when for the first time in
our history a black American is a leading candidate for the
Presidency, when so many domestic issues dominating the
campaign--access to health care, persistent poverty amidst
such plenty, affordable higher education, effective public
schools, environmental protection--are issues LBJ put on the
national government's agenda, it is time to see the full
measure of this President. Too many lessons of his presidency
have been ignored because the Democratic party, the academic
elite, political analysts and the mainstream media have made
him the invisible president.
In this troubled time, when political pollsters and
consultants parse the positions of candidates for public
office, Johnson's exceptional courage on civil rights should
be a shining example for a new generation of political
leaders. His recognition of the significance of bipartisan
support for controversial--but needed--domestic initiatives,
and his ability to muster such support, should be studied by
politicians and citizens who seek to change the world. His
unique ability to make Washington work. to nourish and
maintain partnerships between the Executive and the Congress,
the public and private sectors, and to focus the people on
critical needs like racial justice and eliminating poverty
demonstrate ``Yes, we can!'' to skeptical citizens who have
never seen Washington get it done.
It's time to take off the Vietnam blinders and let our eyes
look at and learn from the domestic dimension of this
presidency. Let everyone think what they will about Vietnam.
But let us--especially Democrats--also recognize the reality
of this revolutionary's remarkable achievements.
It is encouraging to me that some of Johnson's severest
anti-war critics have begun the call for recognition of the
greatness of his presidency.
Listen to the words of George McGovern who ran for
president in 1972 on an anti-war platform and maintains that
``The Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations were all
wrong on Vietnam:''
``It would be a historic tragedy if [LBJ's] outstanding
domestic record remained forever obscured by his involvement
in a war he did not begin and did not know how to stop.. . .
. Johnson did more than any other president to advance civil
rights, education and housing, to name just three of his
concerns. . . . ''
`` The late John Kenneth Galbraith, another leading critic
of the Vietnam War, has called for ``historical
reconsideration'' of the Johnson presidency:
``In the New Deal ethnic equality was only on the public
conscience; in the Kennedy presidency it was strongly urged
by Martin Luther King and many others. . . . It was with
Lyndon Johnson, however, that citizenship for all Americans
in all its aspects became a reality. . . . On civil rights
and on poverty, the two truly urgent issues of the time, we
had with Johnson the greatest changes of our time. . . . The
initiatives of Lyndon Johnson on civil rights, voting rights
and on economic and social deprivation. . . . must no longer
be enshrouded by that [Vietnam] war.''
And listen to Robert Caro, LBJ's most meticulous and
demanding biographer:
``In the twentieth century, with its eighteen American
presidents, Lyndon Johnson was the greatest champion that
black Americans and Mexican Americans, and indeed all
Americans of color, had in the White House, the greatest
champion they had in all the halls of government. With the
single exception of Lincoln, he was the greatest champion
with a white skin that they had in the history of the
Republic. He was . . . the lawmaker for the poor and the
downtrodden and the oppressed . . . . the President who wrote
mercy and justice into the statute books by which America was
governed.''
Historian David McCullough has said that the threshold test
of greatness in a president is whether he is willing to risk
his presidency for what he believes. LBJ passes that test
with flying colors. It's time for all of us to give his
presidency the high marks it deserves.
Lyndon Johnson died 36 years ago in 1972. But his legacy
endures. It endures in the children in Head Start programs in
hamlets across our nation, in the expanded opportunities for
millions of blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. It
endures in the scholarships and loans that enable the poorest
students to attend the finest universities. His legacy
endures in the health care for the poor and the elderly that
are woven into the fabric of American life. It endures in the
public radio stations millions of drivers listen to as they
drive to and from work. It endures in the cleaner air we
breathe, in the local theatres and symphonies supported by
the National Endowments, in the safer cars we drive and safer
toys our children play with.
Seeing is believing.
That legacy also endures--let us remember--in the
unfinished business of our nation's long progressive movement
that he pressed so impatiently for us to finish. LBJ knew
that movement could be stalled, but he knew that it must
never be stopped.
So, over these few days, as we look back and celebrate this
centennial, let us also look forward and let us inspire
others to see clearly and fully.
Because seeing is not only believing; seeing has everything
to do with achieving.
____
Seeing Is Believing: The Enduring Legacy of LBJ
With these acts President Johnson and Congress wrote a record of hope
and opportunity for America
1963
College Facilities, Clean Air, Vocational Education, Indian
Vocational Training, Manpower Training.
1964
Inter-American Development Bank, Kennedy Cultural Center,
Tax Reduction, Farm Program, Pesticide Controls,
International Development Association, Civil Rights Act of
1964, Water Resources Research.
War on Poverty, Criminal Justice, Truth-in-Securities, Food
Stamps, Housing Act, Wilderness Areas, Nurse Training,
Library Services.
1965
Medicare, Medicaid, Elementary and Secondary Education,
Higher Education, Bilingual Education, Departent of Housing
and Urban Development, Housing Act, Voting Rights.
Immigration Reform Law, Older Americans, Heart, Cancer,
Stroke Program, Law Enforcement Assistance, Drug Controls,
Mental Health Facilities, Health Professions, Medical
Libraries.
Vocational Rehabilitation, Anti-Poverty Program, Arts and
Humanities Foundation, Aid to Appalachia, Highway Beauty,
Clean Air, Water Pollution Control, High Speed Transit.
Manpower Training, Child Health, Community Health Services,
Water Resources Council, Water Desalting, Juvenile
Delinquency Control, Arms Control, Affirmative Action.
1966
Child Nutrition, Department of Transportaton, Truth in
Packaging, Model Cities, Rent Supplements, Teahers Corp,
Asian Development Bank, Clean Rivers.
Food for Freedom, Child Safety, Narcotics Rehabilitation,
Traffic Safety, Highway Safety, Mine Safety, International
Education, Bail Reform.
Auto Safety, Tire Safety, New GI Bill, Minimum Wage
Increase, Urban Mass Transit, Civil Procedure Reform, Fish-
Wildlife Preservation, Water for Peace.
Anti-Inflation Program, Scientific Knowledge Exchange,
Protection for Savings, Freedom of Information, Hirshhorn
Museum.
1967
Education Professions, Education Act, Air Pollution
Control, Partnership for Health,
[[Page 10136]]
Social Security Increases, Age Discrimination, Wholesome
Meat, Flammable Fabrics.
Urban Reserch, Public Broadcasting, Outer Space Treaty,
Modern D.C. Government, Federal Judicial Center, Deaf-Blind
Center, College Work Study, Summer Youth Programs.
Food Stamps, Urban Fellowships, Safety at Sea Treaty,
Narcotics Treaty, Anti-Racketeering, Product Safety
Commission, Inter-American Bank.
1968
Fair Housing, Indian Bill of Rights, Safe Streets,
Wholesome Poultry, Community Exchange Rules, School
Breakfasts, Truth-in-Lending, Aircraft Noise Abatement.
New Narcotics Bureau, Gas Pipeline Safety, Fire Safety, Sea
Grant Colleges, Tax Surcharge, Housing Act, International
Monetary Reform, Fair Federal Juries.
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention, Guaranteed Student Loans,
Health Manpower, Gun Controls, Aid-to-Handicapped Children,
Heart, Cancer and Stroke Programs, Hazardous Radiation
Protection, Scenic Rivers.
Scenic Trails, National Water Commission, Vocational
Education, Dangerous Drug Control, Military Justics Code, Tax
Surcharge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see the arrival of my seatmate, a great
friend, Robert C. Byrd, and with permission, I would like to speak for
about 2 minutes, if that is all right. I know he has some important
words.
Before he leaves the floor, I wish to commend my colleague from Iowa,
Tom Harkin. Tom and I arrived in the Congress together 34 years ago in
January of 1973. I have listened to him give eloquent speeches but none
better than the one he just gave regarding Lyndon Johnson--not only the
importance of the man but the importance of his work and what a better
country we are today. We are not that more perfect union yet, but we
are getting there. One major step in that direction was created by
Lyndon Johnson and a guy by the name of Tom Harkin who has carried on
that tradition as well. So he would be very proud of you. I thank the
Senator from Iowa for his remarks this morning.
I have some brief thoughts before deferring to my seatmate and dear
friend, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.
Let me just say to all, we often reflect on the impact this
institution has had on the United States, on our beloved country. But
on this day, I think we cannot help but consider the impact certain
Americans have had on this institution and on our great Republic. At
this moment, we reflect not on legislative accomplishments, which are
Herculean, as Senator Harkin has identified--appropriately so, and with
great eloquence--or even how that might have changed the fabric of our
country--it certainly did--but, rather, on the strength of character
required by those who made such achievements possible.
I wish to join my colleagues and others here today reflecting upon
and paying tribute to one of this great institution's most revered
figures on this centennial anniversary of his birth: the former Senate
majority leader, the 35th President of this body and the 36th President
of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Emerson wrote that:
None of us will ever accomplish anything excellent or
commanding except when he listens to this whisper, which is
heard by him alone.
If that is true, then when the whisper traveled through the winds
sweeping across the Pedernales River in the plains of central Texas,
Lyndon Johnson must have been listening carefully, indeed.
I think we all believe that a society such as ours should aspire to
greatness, aspire to that more perfect union our forefathers
envisioned. But Lyndon Johnson understood something else of what was
required of leaders to get us there: the importance of building
alliances, however unorthodox; the ability to find agreement, even with
those whom we most disagree with; and perhaps most importantly, Lyndon
Baines Johnson recognized that this institution could achieve the most
remarkable of things if its Members were willing to do the kind of work
that more often than not was decidedly unremarkable.
It was his Herculean skills in the legislative arena, of course,
honed on this very floor and in these Halls, that proved such a
complement to the wonderful rhetorical flourishes of those who
identified the great goals we must achieve. But armed with his skills--
his maneuvering, his understanding of his fellow Members, of what they
could tolerate, what they could agree with, how far they could move--
Lyndon Johnson was able, in his very hands, to mold the successful
results of which Tom Harkin spoke so eloquently. In the absence of that
ability, a lot of these achievements would have been nothing more than
rhetorical flourishes. It took the brilliance of a legislator--not
unlike the skills of the gentleman who sits next to me here this
morning, Robert C. Byrd--to be able to fashion and create the very
legislative achievements we talk about. Indeed, it is often said that
it took the hardscrabble southerner from Texas to broker a Civil Rights
Act. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that or with the
long litany of legislative achievements Tom Harkin has identified. But
I think it does in a sense a disservice to just identify what was
perhaps Lyndon Johnson's greatest skill, and that was moving a
political body reluctant to change, as most political bodies are.
To be sure, I would be remiss if I were not to mention my father's
relationship with Lyndon Johnson as well. I sit at the desk my father
occupied in this body for the more than 10 years he served here. But
that relationship went back a lot longer than their years here. My
father, as a young law school graduate at the outset of the New Deal,
became the first State Director of the National Youth Administration in
1933, and Lyndon Johnson was a young man beginning his career in Texas
politics and was running a similar program in that State.
Their relationship started in the 1930s and blossomed during their
years in public service in this very institution. I am sort of a
creature of this place, in many ways, having grown up here. I was a
mere child of 8 when my father came to Congress in 1952, and then to
the Senate in 1959, with my seat-mate, Senator Byrd. I sat in the
family gallery in 1959 and watched him take the oath of office. Three
years later, I sat on the floor, dressed like these young men and
women, as a Senate page and watched Lyndon Johnson maneuver through
this building. In those days, there were no television cameras or
microphones that can carry your voice through the halls of this room
and beyond. I would watch Lyndon Johnson at this table in front of me
here. Members would gather around because you could not hear everything
he said--intentionally, I might add, as he was careful that not
everything he said was necessarily heard by everyone about the schedule
of the Senate, or he may have been talking about achievements that were
made. I was here for some of the all-night sessions when the civil
rights debates were going on. I developed friendships, which I still
hold today, with the other young pages I worked with in those early
days.
Lyndon Johnson and my father and Lady Bird and my mother had a great
relationship. I have shared with Lynda, Luci, and their families that I
remember vividly Mrs. Johnson being at our home. My mother and she
would meet with Mercedes Douglas, Justice Douglas's wife, to practice
Spanish together. They had a great relationship over the years. I
remember vividly, as well, President Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson
hosting a surprise wedding anniversary party for my parents at a
restaurant here in Washington one evening, as they celebrated their
35th wedding anniversary. So there are family ties that run long and
deep.
I remember in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson very graciously invited my
father and Hubert Humphrey to come to the White House on the eve of the
Vice Presidential nomination in Atlantic City. There was no doubt that
Humphrey would be the choice, but it was the gracious act of a
President to recognize a friendship he had with this young man from
Connecticut, going back to the 1930s, that he invited him to be part of
that raising the expectation that he might be chosen as a Vice
Presidential running mate for Lyndon Johnson. My father seconded
Johnson's nomination in 1960 when I was a page, as well, and watching
history unfold.
[[Page 10137]]
So it is with great joy that I come to the floor this morning to
celebrate a remarkable life that made a huge difference. When students
ask us--as they oftentimes do--``can any one person make a difference
in the life of other people?'' you need look no further than the
initials LBJ. It is a story of how one individual, as Tom Harkin said,
born in the hardscrabble territory of central Texas, grew up and served
in this body, managed this institution, produced the results he did,
and became President of a country that allowed us to achieve the great
achievements of the 1960s.
We are all beneficiaries of Lyndon Johnson's legacy. It is highly
appropriate, not only today, this week, or in the year of this
centennial anniversary, and with great frequency, to remind the young
people sitting here today as pages that these great achievements didn't
happen miraculously. They weren't given out with a gracious heart of
those who fought. They were won in hard-fought battles that produced
these results. Our generation, your generation, will have to fight
hard, too, to make sure we are going to achieve good things and learn
the lessons of Lyndon Johnson--how hard he fought to make a difference
in his country and in the world in which we live.
I am honored to be joining those who today celebrate the life,
celebrate an achievement our country benefited from, and as long as we
survive as a republic, the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson. It is a
great moment that we ought to remember and cherish for years and years
to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate marks the 100th anniversary
of the birth of Lyndon Baines Johnson. The Senate has changed much, in
a sense; in another sense, it has changed little since the days when
Senator and Majority Leader Johnson strode through these halls and
presided over this great body.
I was fortunate to serve with Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson. I
was fortunate to serve with President Lyndon B. Johnson. And although
most Americans remember Lyndon B. Johnson in his role as President of
the United States, it is as majority leader and Senator that I
especially recall Lyndon B. Johnson.
As I noted upon his death in 1973:
In his heart, [he] was a man of the Senate. He had a deep
and abiding faith in this body, and its place in the past and
the future history of this Republic.
It is, therefore, most fitting on the centennial of Lyndon Johnson's
birth that he be remembered here in this Senate that he loved.
Lyndon Baines Johnson was the majority leader when I came to the
Senate in 1959, and from my first day in the Senate, and for the next 2
years, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson was a mentor and friend,
as well as a leader, to me. At that time, my colleagues, the Senate had
a long tradition that a newcomer to the Senate would not be assigned to
the more important Senate committees. Yet--hear this, my colleagues--
Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson placed me on the Appropriations
Committee, even though there were several other more senior Members who
coveted a position on that prestigious committee. The rest, as they
say, is history, still in the making, because I, Robert C. Byrd, am
still on the Appropriations Committee.
Whenever I went to Lyndon B. Johnson with problems concerning my
State of West Virginia, in every instance Majority Leader Johnson was
considerate and, in every instance, Majority Leader Johnson tried to be
helpful to me. I acknowledged that support and leadership, not only to
me but to the Senate, the Democratic Party, and to our Nation, in an
address that I titled ``The Role of the Majority Leader in the
Senate,'' given at the end of my first year in the Senate. I pointed
out that Senator Johnson was ``the cohesive, the centrifugal force by
which the majority is held together.''
When he became Vice President of the United States, I again paid
tribute to my former colleague and mentor, declaring that his
``political leadership in the Senate [was] a guide and an inspiration
to all of us.''
Amidst tragedy, on November 22, 1963, Lyndon Johnson became President
of these United States. His administration achieved many
accomplishments, especially in the areas of civil rights and social
policy.
I believe, however, in the observation I made at the time of Lyndon
B. Johnson's death:
The years Lyndon Johnson spent in the Senate might well
have been the happiest and the most satisfying of his life.
Lyndon B. Johnson will long be remembered here 100, even 200, years
and more after his birth, for his leadership, his sagacity, his wit,
for the sheer enjoyment he derived from working in the Senate, and his
obvious love for this body and the great Nation it serves.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, this is an opportunity for me to speak about
the supplemental appropriations bill, but I would be remiss if I did
not recognize the extraordinary life and service of President Lyndon
Baines Johnson.
I can remember graphically, as a high school student at La Salle
Academy in Providence, RI, going down to, at that time recently named,
Kennedy Plaza in Providence to see President Johnson in a motorcade on
his way to Brown University to deliver a major policy address with, at
that time, the senior Senator John O. Pastore. They were both
celebrating tremendous legislative accomplishments in education, health
care, and civil rights, none of which would have been wrought except by
the vision and work of Lyndon Johnson.
We are commemorating an extraordinary President, an extraordinary
gentleman, someone truly larger than life whose contribution and whose
influence is with us today. In fact, many days on this Senate floor, I
think our tact is to live up to his ideals and his accomplishments and
to make them fresh again in both the heart and spirit of America. I
hope on our best days we do that.
____________________
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to focus my remaining remarks on the
supplemental appropriations bill which is pending before the Senate. We
passed a supplemental appropriations bill out of the Appropriations
Committee, which I serve on, last week. This bill contains $168.9
billion for funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the
amount the President requested. But importantly, this bill also
includes significant contributions to the domestic economy of this
country, to the needs here at home, not just overseas.
It includes funds for LIHEAP. At a time when oil is topping $130 a
barrel, the drain on low-income Americans and seniors particularly,
simply to pay heating prices, and in the Southwest and South of our
country, cooling prices this summer are extraordinary. It is a burden.
It is a huge burden. We have incorporated some funds for that
situation.
We also have moneys for unemployment insurance, not only necessary to
sustain families in a time of economic crisis but also one of the most
effective stimulus devices. The money from unemployment insurance goes
quickly from the recipient to the local market, to all the needs of a
family struggling in this economy to get by. It is a tremendous way to
stimulate our economy. So it has both individual benefits and economic
benefits for the country as a whole.
I must also point out that included in these domestic provisions is
extraordinary legislation by Senator Webb, my colleague from Virginia,
the enhanced GI bill of rights. Senator Webb has done an extraordinary
job, and it is
[[Page 10138]]
not surprising. He approaches this not only as a very astute legislator
but as a combat marine veteran of Vietnam. He has borne the burden of
battle. He understands now, in the famous words of President Lincoln,
that it is our responsibility to take care of those who have borne the
burden of battle.
This responsibility is, I think, one of the most paramount we face,
and his legislation goes right to the concerns of so many returning
veterans: How will I get back to education? How will I fund my
education? How will I be similar to my predecessors, the generation of
my father--when so many had the opportunity to go to college, and then
not only did they contribute to their own family's well-being, they
helped build an economic powerhouse we have seen in America since World
War II.
This is a program, again, which I think is extraordinarily important.
I commend Senator Webb for his vision, for his persistence, and for his
passion. I hope we include it in the final version of the supplemental
appropriations bill.
As I mentioned before, we are putting funds in for LIHEAP. I offered
an amendment to include $1 billion. It is so necessary. In places such
as California, there are 1.7 million households behind in their utility
bills. That is up 100,000 from last year, and last year was a difficult
year for many. There are 650,000 households in Pennsylvania that are
receiving shutoff warnings, a huge number of families who are facing
the end of their utility service. In a very uncertain economy, it is
difficult to reestablish that relationship going forward unless we help
them.
We have seen a 162-percent increase in energy costs since 2000. It is
extraordinary. There is no paycheck for working Americans that has gone
up 162 percent, but their energy bills have. We have seen heating oil
prices in the last year increase 35 percent. So this is something that
is absolutely critical, just as unemployment insurance, just as so many
aspects of this legislation.
There are also included provisions not requested by the President.
There is some assistance for the global food crisis and for the
terrible natural disasters in Myanmar and China.
We also include, as another aspect of the legislation, something that
is absolutely, I believe, critical, and that is conditions on our
policy with respect to Iraq, particularly. This Congress has, over my
strenuous efforts otherwise, essentially given the President a blank
check. He demands money, and he has been given money but without
conditions. I think it is the responsibility of this Congress to impose
reasonable conditions on the funding, to not only govern our operations
but also to make it clear to the Iraqi Government that they are
ultimately responsible for their own safety, their own future, their
own stability, the future of the Iraqi nation and the Iraqi people. It
is not something we can do for them. We have rendered extraordinary
assistance to them, but the task is truly theirs, and they must seize
that task.
These conditions, I think, are terribly important. One would, for
example, ensure the readiness of our troops, who are being stretched to
the limit, ensure they are ready when they are deployed. That is
something I hope no one is arguing with.
Another provision directs the Government to negotiate cost sharing
for fuel and troop training with the Iraqis. The Iraqi Government has
accumulated upward of $10 billion or more because of the surging oil
prices. Very little, if any, of those funds is being devoted to their
own people or to the joint effort we have undertaken with them to
stabilize the country. It is only fair that they should begin to pay
their fair share, particularly since they are sitting on a significant
amount of money resulting from high energy prices. That money should be
devoted to stabilizing their country and helping their people, much
more so than they are doing today.
Then there is another provision which is something Senator Levin and
I have been stressing for many months now, and that is to begin a
transition of the missions our military forces and diplomatic forces
are performing in Iraq, particularly our military forces, instead of an
open-ended mission, and we have seen this mission from the President's
standpoint change dramatically.
As you will recall, the first mission was to find and destroy the
weapons of mass destruction, a very difficult mission, since there were
no weapons of mass destruction. Then there was the mission of creating
a democratic oasis in the Persian Gulf, a very grandiose mission, more
or less, and that mission, I think, has been discounted dramatically
over the last several months by the President's own rhetoric. He has
talked now about simply creating a country that will sustain itself and
not threaten its neighbors.
We have to focus not on these globalized missions which are more
dogmatic and ideological, but on things the military should be doing
for our protection in the context of redeploying forces out of Iraq.
Those missions are, in my view, force protection--we have to ensure our
forces are fully protected--counterterrorism, because we cannot
surrender that mission anywhere in the world; we have to be able to
seek out and destroy those terrorist cells that are plotting and
planning against the United States and our allies; and third is to
train the Iraqi security forces because we do have to provide a force
that will stay behind, a force that will help stabilize that country.
The essence of the Levin-Reed amendment has been to move from the
open-ended missions of today to these discrete missions and, in so
doing, begin a deliberate, consistent disengagement of our forces and a
reduction of our forces in Iraq. That is a policy that will, I think,
work, and it is a policy that eventually, ultimately must be followed.
I think the reluctance of the administration to entertain any
conditions whatsoever over the last several years has undermined, in
the long run, our ability to influence the Government of Iraq and also
to reassure the American public we are not into an open-ended,
unlimited commitment, stretching years and decades and beyond, that our
mission is discrete, that our mission in terms of military presence is
coming down and will not reverse itself, and that we are doing all we
can in that context to save lives in Iraq.
On 9/11, this country was struck by terrorists. The United States,
this Senate, the Congress, the administration rallied together with
unanimity and with purpose. We authorized and supported an attack
against Afghanistan because that is where the perpetrators were lodged,
that is where al-Qaida was headquartered. They were collaborating with
the Taliban government. They were given safe haven there. The planning
for so much of what went on, on that fateful day, originated from
Afghanistan. That is where bin Laden, that is where the leadership of
al-Qaida was. We struck there, and I must say in an extraordinarily
successful operation--and credit and criticism must be given, and there
is great credit in terms of the leadership of the administration, our
military forces conducting a very sophisticated operation, an operation
that used our advantages with precision weapons, used very effectively
our special forces, and used collaborative efforts with forces on the
ground in Afghanistan and also the collaboration and support, in many
respects, of the international community. But rather than consolidating
our gains after that successful operation and pursuing al-Qaida in
Pakistan, where the leadership fled, the administration turned
immediately, almost immediately, to Iraq. And not out of any, I think,
strategic need, but out of a dogmatic political, ideological need.
They thought Iraq would be a relatively easy target. They were
speaking in those days, informally at least, about a very short
operation, and that almost immediately Iraq would blossom as a source
of democratic inspiration and market economics in that region. We know
the history has not been that cheerful. And that diversion to Iraq, I
believe, was a deeply flawed strategy. It was an attack on a country
that did not represent an immediate threat to the United States, a
point I made on the floor of this Senate as I
[[Page 10139]]
opposed the resolution of 2002 to conduct those operations.
Because we were pursuing not a strategic necessity but an ideological
obsession, it was not a mission that was well advised or well planned
for. There was more hope than planning involved, more ideology than
practical commonsense application of force to a threatening situation
in the world. One of the unfortunate ironies of this is that as we have
been obsessed and committed in Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself
as an incredible force once again. The whole purpose of our attack in
Afghanistan, the whole thrust of our efforts immediately after 9/11,
was to decisively and, we hoped, irrevocably destroy al-Qaida. Al-Qaida
is back. While we have been engaged in this hugely expensive mission--
expensive not only in terms of resources but in terms of the lives of
our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, and also the wear and tear
on our military forces--al-Qaida has been quietly rebuilding.
The other thing that has happened unwittingly is that Iran has become
a much more credible threat to stability in the region; has become even
more influential and powerful. In some respects, this is a direct
result of our engagement in Iraq.
Also in that time period, we stood by as the North Koreans overthrew
the agreed framework, seized the plutonium that was in the reactors
around Yongbyan and took it away. Now we are trying desperately to put
together another agreement with the North Koreans, but after years in
which they not only tested longer range missiles but also detonated a
nuclear device. They crossed a threshold that had never been crossed
before, they detonated a nuclear device, and our reaction was, I think
necessarily perhaps because of our engagement in Iraq, one of seeking,
perhaps too late now, a diplomatic approach. But if you go back to
2000, we had a framework in place that looks very much like the
framework they are working out today. We had the plutonium secured,
North Korea had not tested a nuclear device, and there were hopes that
with further active negotiations we could make additional progress.
That, I think, too, is a cost of our engagement in Iraq.
It has also greatly diminished our standing in the international
community. This is not just a nice thing to have. An essential
attribute of national power is the respect, the esteem, the
cooperation, the good wishes, the goodwill, and the political and
diplomatic support of other nations, because in this world most of the
great challenges cannot be met alone. That was contrary, I think, to
the unilateralism that abounded in this administration; that if in fact
we are going to do something significant, longstanding and sustainable,
it requires a multinational approach and the foundation of that
approach is the goodwill and good wishes of the people of the world.
This administration has squandered much of that.
It also is contributing, and we can debate how much, to this
faltering economy. Oil today is $130 a barrel. Some of that is
attributable to the instability in the gulf region; the fact that Iraq
has not been producing the same volume of oil consistently over the
last several years that it did before the operation. This geopolitical
uncertainty has contributed significantly to the price of oil and it is
also, I think, contributing to the overall economic issue we are
addressing here today, a very critical issue in the United States.
Another aspect of this policy is that we have stretched our military,
our land forces, to the brink, if you will. They have seen significant
deployments consistently time and time again and the toll is adding up
on our military forces. We are now left, and the next administration is
left, and this Congress and the American people, with dealing with the
consequences of this flawed strategy. I believe we have to begin to
recognize and realistically assess the political and military situation
in Iraq. We have to begin to develop and implement achievable missions
for our U.S. forces there and their civilian counterparts, and then we
must turn our attention to restoring our economic prosperity and
growth, and rebuilding our military, which has been significantly
stretched and stressed by this operation.
We have to also reorganize our civilian resources to deal with the
ongoing threats in the world. That is something this administration has
yet to do effectively--to develop a complementary power of our State
Department officials, our agriculture officials, and all those people
who must be part of this approach to a kind of warfare that is, in many
cases, less about firepower and more about reaching people with
economic progress and educational reform, and water systems. Those are
more potent weapons sometimes than any precision-guided missile we
might deploy.
I think our first step in all of this is passing this supplemental
appropriations bill, with conditioned funding for our forces, with
reasonable conditions about the mission and the responsibilities the
Iraqi Government should have, and also once again beginning to invest
in the American people, investing in keeping them warm in the winter
through LIHEAP and keeping them cool through LIHEAP in the summertime;
giving them a chance, if they lose their job, to at least keep looking
for some support with extended unemployment benefits, and so many other
things we have included in this. I think that is critical.
Now, I mentioned before I have felt since 2002 that the strategy of
the administration toward Iraq was flawed significantly. It was, I
think, a product of a dogma. No one can I think dispute the power of
democracy, and it is a power that is not exclusive to our culture. It
is a human demand, the ability to live with a sense of personal
integrity and personal freedom. But I think the administration didn't
realize you need the institutional capacity to have a democratic
government, and this capacity is not automatic nor is it built up in a
matter of weeks or months. We have seen in Iraq, and in so many other
places, that democratic elections do not necessarily lead to democratic
political forces controlling a country; that you need to build
carefully over, I would suggest, many years the institutional capacity
so that elections lead to true democracy, not simply legitimizing those
people who are antidemocratic.
I think this has been one of the tremendous flaws of the President's
concept of the mission. As a result, we started off with, obviously, I
think, an ill-conceived mission of eliminating weapons of mass
destruction in a country in which it turned out there were no weapons
of mass destruction. People forget that the United Nations put
inspectors on the ground, and that it was this administration who
hastened their departure, rather than using these inspectors over time
to establish whether there were weapons or whether there were no
weapons, or at least to do it in a way in which subsequent military
action would be legitimized by either noncooperation of the Iraqis or
the fact that the questions couldn't be established or answered. But
they quickly rushed to a military option, and I think that option has
had unfortunate consequences for the United States.
One of the principal consequences, and I mentioned this in my
introductory comments, is the fact that al-Qaida, the existential
threat to this country, as evidenced by 9/11, has in fact reconstituted
itself, not only in the border regions of Afghanistan, to a degree, but
much more particularly in Pakistan, in the federally administered
tribal areas. These are poor tribal areas ill governed by the
Government of Pakistan. In fact, there are provisions in their organic
laws which limit their real access to these areas. It has a population
of 3 million people, and in that 3 million people al-Qaida, bin Laden,
and al Zawahiri have found sanctuary and a safe haven, that continues
today.
In a sobering report released last month by the Government
Accountability Office, they stated:
The United States has not met its national security goals
to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe havens in
Pakistan's FATA.
And this is 7 years after 9/11.
Since 2002, the U.S. has provided Pakistan with $10.5
billion in military, economic, and developmental aid. Half of
it has gone to the
[[Page 10140]]
military. But despite these actions--despite this
extraordinary amount of money--GAO found broad agreement, as
documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State and
embassy documents, as well as defense officials in Pakistan,
that al-Qaida had regenerated its ability to attack the
United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven
in Pakistan's FATA.
Now, I thought the point of our national strategy after 9/11 was to
destroy al-Qaida and to eliminate any possibility of a safe haven
anywhere in the world. And according to these documents, our embassy,
our Defense officials, our national intelligence agency, al-Qaida has
reestablished itself and has found safe haven. I would suggest that is,
I think, a stunning indictment of the strategy of this administration
over the last several years; again, I think an unfortunate consequence
of the obsession that they have chosen to pursue in Iraq.
An even more disturbing finding of GAO is:
No comprehensive plan comprised of diplomatic, economic,
intelligence and military efforts for meeting U.S. National
security goals in the FATA has been developed.
The one thing that seems to be consistent about the administration is
they do not do much planning. There was no plan for Iraq and, according
to the GAO, there is no plan for Pakistan and the federally
administered tribal areas there.
A key part of the plan that must be developed in Pakistan is economic
development. Because what I have witnessed, in the several times I have
been to Pakistan, is that this is not strictly, as so many of these
conflicts are, a military action. It requires providing economic
support, it requires giving people a sense that their fate should be
linked to their legitimate government, and that government should be
pursuing goals which are not strictly sectarian. That government should
be a government relatively open and democratic, and that the appeal of
the extremist is weakened if people have that sense of confidence in
their government, confidence in their future. That is not a military
issue essentially; that is an issue of economic development, of
supporting legitimate institutions of the state, be it Pakistan or
elsewhere.
That has been recognized by, I think, many experts. But the senior
U.S. Embassy officials in Pakistan admit there has been overreliance on
the Pakistani military to achieve U.S. national security objectives;
that we have not developed a complementary approach of a comprehensive
strategy which includes economic, political, and social development
also.
As a result, in March, the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Michael Hayden, described al-Qaida's safe haven as a ``clear
and present danger to the United States.'' The chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, ADM Michael Mullen, has stated:
If I were going to pick the next attack to hit the United
States, it would come out of the FATA.
Now, let us be clear. It is not out of Iraq, it is not out of Mosul,
or Basra, or Baghdad, it is out of the FATA. That is the view of the
chief uniformed officer of the United States. The 2008 Director of
National Intelligence annual threat assessment, which represents the
combined judgments of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has concluded
that:
The resurgence of the FATA now poses a preeminent threat to
the United States national security.
The problems of the FATA are being highlighted by deteriorating
conditions in Afghanistan.
What we have seen from the initial success in Afghanistan has been a
steady, at times rapid, deterioration of conditions there. It is
evident that our efforts in Afghanistan are being undermined by what is
happening in Pakistan. Not only have we taken our eye off the major
threat, al-Qaida, and allowed it to reconstitute, we are in danger of
seeing the progress we have made in Afghanistan slip away.
In 2003, the Taliban, the former government, and their followers, who
have continued to try to assert their will in Afghanistan, were
operating squad size units. Now we have reports they are operating in
battalion size units of almost 400 people, showing the climate has
changed radically. Suicide bombers have attacked at rates that were not
observed in Afghanistan until relatively recently, but as you have no
doubt surmised, it is something that has been imported through
terrorist networks into Afghanistan.
Afghanistan's index of corruption is among the highest in the world.
You have a state that has marginal capacity to govern well and wisely.
Again, this is after many years of our involvement, our engagement.
Also, there was a sense that, initially at least, before Iraq,
Afghanistan was the major test of our ability, not only to defeat al-
Qaida but also to create or help create, in collaboration with the
Afghanis, a stable government. That test is in danger of failing
miserably.
Afghanistan now provides 93 percent of the world's opium. One of the
great additional ironies, now it is one of the major suppliers of
drugs, and it is doing so while we maintain our military and diplomatic
presence there.
We have a NATO contingent there, but frankly NATO has not been able
to fulfill all of its obligations, putting more pressure on our
military alliance forces. I think we have to urge NATO to be more
helpful. Hopefully, they will. But, as a result, we have sent
additional forces in there, about 4,300 troops. We are prepared to send
more. This is adding additional stress and strain on our military
forces.
As I look, we are seeing a situation in which the principal objective
in response to 9/11, the principal place where our enemies were, has
now been relegated to the third page of the paper, as the headlines are
dominated by Iraq. I think we have a situation where we have literally
taken our eye off the major existential threat.
We have another consequence of our operations in Iraq, and that is we
have empowered Iran. Iran is heavily involved in Iraq. Its objectives
are questionable. They have an interest in maintaining strategic depth
by keeping the regime in Baghdad as one that is friendly to them, not
hostile as the Baathists were. Also, they have many colleagues in the
Iraqi Shia movement. Some of these individuals actually fought with the
Iranians against the Iraqis in the 1980s in the Iraq-Iran war.
Iraq is materially assisting all the major Shia parties. They have
not limited themselves to one party or one particular group. As we all
know, in March of this year, President Ahmadinejad visited Iraq for 2
days. The present government in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki and all,
rolled out the red carpet--literally. He arrived in a motorcade and ran
around Baghdad in a sport coat. When any of our colleagues go or when
any of our major administrative officials go, it is surreptitiously, it
is guarded, and it is in a flak jacket. So there is something going on
there with respect to this Government of Iraq and Ahmadinejad and his
warm welcome. I think it graphically shows the influence they have in
that country.
We are finding a steady supply of IEDs which our military authorities
trace to Iran, or at least their technology. Iran is heavily engaged in
funding social organizations and building a model they have used
elsewhere--Hezbolla in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian Authority--
where they are able to not only help them organize the military force
but help them carry out social functions, helping people, helping
widows, providing relief. That is very powerful when you have a
dysfunctional government and that is the case in Iraq.
We also know, on another track, the Iranians are attempting to
develop a nuclear fuel cycle. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy
Administration, has been spending decades trying to track the
developmental work of the Iranian Government. In 2006 there were
documents found of possible nuclear dimension to their program in Iran.
This is of great consequence to us. There is a legitimate concern that
if the Iranian Government were able to develop a nuclear fuel cycle and
could produce nuclear material, they would not be able to resist the
temptation to develop a nuclear device. That would be of significant
consequence in the region and in the world.
All that is happening in the context of our energies and our
attention being
[[Page 10141]]
overwhelmingly devoted to Iraq. There is a connection between the
growing geopolitical clout of Iran in the region and our situation
within Iraq. In the long run, I think we might look back and discover
that one of the real costs of Iraq was the emergence of a much more
difficult, much more threatening, much more powerful Iran.
As I mentioned earlier, while we have been focused so strenuously on
Iraq, North Korea has broken out of the Agreed Framework. They have
expelled international inspectors. They have withdrawn from the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. They restarted their nuclear installation at
Yongbyon. It is estimated that up to 50 kilograms of separated
plutonium, enough for at least six nuclear weapons, have been taken by
the North Koreans and dispersed somewhere in the country.
On October 9, 2006, the North Koreans conducted a nuclear test--
crossed a red line they had never done before, detonated a nuclear
device. Fortunately, over the last several months the administration
has reinstituted serious negotiations with the North Koreans. Under the
able leadership of Ambassador Christopher Hill, they have begun to
identify and work with the North Koreans to identify where the
plutonium might be, where there are other nuclear materials, nuclear
technologies, and they are beginning to walk back where we were,
ironically, in the year 2000 and provide some sense of a diplomatic
solution to a very pressing problem.
But I would argue this would be a very different situation if we were
not so decisively involved and engaged in Iraq.
I mentioned also, in the course of these last several years, our
involvement in Iraq has hurt us in terms of the world's opinion. That
is not just a nice thing to have, it is an essential thing to have. In
late 2001, 52 percent of Turkish citizens and 75 percent of our British
allies viewed the United States favorably. Now that favorable view has
dropped to 9 percent in Turkey and 51 percent in Great Britain--one of
our longest and most significant allies, Great Britain, and Turkey, one
of the most significant members of NATO and also a Muslim country. We
have seen our public approval drop precipitously.
In a poll conducted by the BBC just last month, 47 percent of
citizens in 25 countries said the United States is playing a mainly
negative role in the world. That type of public opinion will not
inspire political leaders around the world to help us very much. In
fact, to do so they have to consciously operate against their own
public opinion. That is a difficult challenge anywhere.
Last month, Zogby and the University of Maryland surveyed citizens of
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the UAE and found 83
percent had an unfavorable view of the United States. These countries
are moderate Arab countries, so to speak, whose support in this effort
in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere is necessary. Their unfavorable
view of the United States is alarming.
One of the keys we know of prevailing in this struggle is to
challenge and rally the forces of moderation and democracy through the
Arab world, of getting the people of the Arab world to understand that
we are trying to assist them. That is not working, unfortunately.
Then, as I mentioned, we have the economic consequences of the war.
In December 31, 2002, the New York Times reported:
The administration's top budget official estimated today
that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50
billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier
estimates from White House officials--
Then OMB Director--
Mitch Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a
long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But
he said the administration was budgeting for both, and
earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war
costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief
economic adviser, were too high.
To date we have approved $526 billion for operations in Iraq--far in
excess of any of the estimates of the administration. That spending is
affecting what we can do to help our own citizens, what we can do to
play a positive role in the world--not in a military sense but in a
diplomatic and international sense, helping in so many different areas.
Now, to gain some perspective on the $500-plus billion that we have
committed to Iraq, what we could have used it for, this amount accrued
plus the amount in the supplemental we are considering would have been
sufficient to provide health insurance coverage to all the 45 million
uninsured Americans for the timeframe 2003 to 2008. That is taken from
the Joint Economic Committee. That would be a significant benefit to
the people of America, but that is a benefit foregone. I have pointed
out all this money to date has been deficit spending. This is not
something we have paid for. One of the complaints we often hear around
here is that it is irresponsible to spend money without somehow
offsetting it. That line of thought does not persist with the
administration when it comes to funding this war in Iraq.
We have also piled up huge contingency costs as we go forward. The
direct costs are significant, but the indirect costs and the future
costs are also important to note. We have to repair and replace the
military equipment that is being used. We have spent money to increase
recruitment and retention, and we have to do that for many years. We
have had economic disruptions caused by deployment of the National
Guard and Reserve troops who have to leave their jobs to go into the
military.
According to a November 2007 report compiled by the Joint Economic
Committee, the impact of the war on the U.S. economy to date is $1.3
trillion or $16,500 for every American family of four. So the costs,
both direct and indirect, have been staggering.
Those costs continue. One of the critical costs we are going to face
is the cost going forward of helping our veterans. I was very pleased
last year to act as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs while Senator Johnson
recovered, and now I am equally pleased to know that he is chairing
that subcommittee and doing a remarkable job. But we were able to pass
a significant increase in spending for our veterans.
But the real challenge for us is will we do that 5 years from now? 7
years from now? 8 years from now? 20 years from now, when these
veterans still need the help but time has passed? I hope we will. That
would be a test--and if I am here, I hope I will be able to remind
people that the test is each year not 1 year or 2 years.
As Professor Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, pointed out, this cost, when
you aggregate it all, is in the trillions of dollars going forward,
looking at the consequential costs today, looking at the direct
spending.
That is taking its toll on the economy of this country.
Another place where the toll is being taken is on our Army and Marine
Corps, particularly; our military in general, but particularly our Army
and Marine Corps.
I recall, as so many of us do, years ago, August 3, 2000, to be
precise when Governor Bush stated: Our military is low on parts, pay
and morale. If called upon by the Commander in Chief today, two entire
divisions of the Army will have to report ``Not ready for duty, sir.''.
Well, Army readiness is worse today than it was in 2000, and if that
is the metric to measure the success of the Commander in Chief, I would
argue that that metric has failed. If we look at readiness today, while
we have a situation which our brigade combat teams that are deployed or
are preparing to deploy are considered ready, the Army has only one
ready brigade combat team in reserve for any other contingency in the
world. Strategically our flexibility has been constrained almost to the
vanishing point. That is a consequence of Iraq.
On February 26, the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, said before
the Senate Armed Services Committee:
The cumulative effects of the last 6 plus years at war have
left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight
and unable to do the things we know we need to do properly,
sustain our all-volunteer force, and
[[Page 10142]]
restore our flexibility for an uncertain future.
He added:
We are consuming readiness as fast as we build it.
I would ask, rhetorically, I wonder if General Casey had to report
how many divisions are not ready today, it would probably be more than
two, if you aggregated all of the brigades, that for reasons of
training, equipping, and personnel are not at 100 percent.
On April 8, General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army,
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on readiness:
I have been doing this for 6 years. As you know I was at G-
3 of the Army and vice chief now for almost 4 years. And I
have never seen our lack of strategic depth where it is
today.
We have 162,400 troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There are
33,000 troops in Afghanistan serving in the ISAF and Operation Enduring
Freedom. Since 2002, 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or
Afghanistan, and many of them are multiple tours. Of those on active
duty, 336,000 have 1 tour; 108,000 have had 2 tours; and 30,000 have
had 3 or more tours.
This is a pace that cannot be sustained. It is a pace that is taking
a tremendous toll on our troops and their families, and it is a toll
again that cannot be indefinitely sustained.
For our reservists, we have had many of those who have had at least 1
tour, 97,000; 9,000 have had 2 or more tours; and the notices that went
out this week to mobilize and alert roughly 42,000 troops include
significant Reserve and National Guard deployments, brigade combat
teams in the National Guard that will go again. I suspect for many of
them it will be at least their second tour and perhaps for some their
third. So we have had tremendous turbulence in terms of deployment of
our land forces. Our military personnel are dedicated. They are doing a
superb job. But they cannot keep up this pace. That is one aspect of
it, personnel.
The other aspect is equipment. We have fought tirelessly here in this
Congress to give our forces the equipment they need. I can recall
returning in 2003 from Iraq, seeing my National Guard military police
people in Baghdad being told that they did not have armored humvees and
they needed them because they were in the middle of a fight in
Fallujah.
I contacted the military authorities. I came to the floor of the
Senate, proposed we increase the funding for armored humvees, and that
was an initiative that started with my colleagues here in the Senate
and the House, reluctantly agreed to, I think, from my perspective, by
the administration. It took us many months to begin to get sufficient
armored vehicles into Iraq.
Similarly we are now on a second and third generation with MRAP, the
mine resistant vehicles. That too was a result of many efforts here in
the Congress to get that equipment out to our troops.
I believe, I hope, they have everything they need, the latest
technology. That is something that is absolutely essential. But all of
this equipment is being used and overused. Roughly 30 percent of the
Marine Corps' ground equipment and half of the Army's ground equipment
is in Iraq and Afghanistan, again leaving very little back here in the
United States, relatively speaking, for the training and the
contingency operations that might take place here in a natural disaster
or some other major contingency.
It is a harsh, hard environment. The operational tempo is wearing out
this equipment. I recall being out in Anbar Province getting ready to
go on a Marine helicopter. They were briefing us routinely, claiming
that the engines on these helicopters were operating way beyond where
they would normally operate. They assured me it was safe to get on the
helicopter. But one wondered, as you got on: Would this rate of
operational use, if the stress and the strains eventually, would it
result in malfunctions for our troops, our forces, our marines in the
field.
So we expect, the Army expects, to need $12 to $13 billion per year
to reset the forces. The Marine Corps estimates it will need $15.6
billion for reset over the next several years when the operations begin
to wind down. The Army National Guard has little more than half of its
required equipment and they will need $22 billion for the next 5 years
to build the equipment up to 75 percent of authorized levels. So we
have a tremendous impact on our Army because of our operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and principally Iraq.
The other aspect of readiness is training. Because the time back home
of Army forces has been reduced effectively to 12 months, they cannot
do the same type and the same level of training they had been doing
previous to Iraq. In fact, if you talked to most troops, they come back
from Iraq, and then they start training, not for the range of missions
our military force has to be prepared for but for their next deployment
into either Iraq or Afghanistan. In that time they have to squeeze in
time with their family, they have to squeeze in the administrative
details that are part and parcel of being in home base.
Their training is being pressured. Some of the equipment they need to
train is not there. It is already overseas and it remains over there.
There is this increasing concern that the only mission they are
training for is counterinsurgency and urban combat, because Iraq
dominates so much of the time, attention, and resources in the Army.
Another aspect of readiness is recruiting, and this high operational
tempo has led the Army in some cases to miss their recruiting goals.
Recently, they have been achieving those goals, but it is not without
lowering standards, it is not without huge incentives or significant
incentives. It is something that over the course of the next several
months and years will show increasing strain and stress on the military
force, their ability to recruit, their ability to retain.
In 2005 the Army missed its active-duty recruiting targets by 8
percent. That was the first time they had ever missed recruiting
targets since 1999, and by a margin not seen since 1979, in the early
years of the volunteer Army. Since 2006 the Army has met its yearly
recruiting goals, but only by taking some extraordinary measures. In
2007, more than 20 percent of the new Army recruits needed waivers; 57
percent for conduct, 36 percent for medical reasons, and 7 percent for
substance abuse. There was a time prior to Iraq when the Army prided
itself on approving very few waivers and was trying to drive the
standards up, not lower the standards. Thus far in fiscal year 2008,
only 82 percent of the recruits have high school diplomas. The
longstanding goal of the Army is at least 90 percent. The maximum age
for new recruits has been raised from 35 to 42. Now, all of these
soldiers are doing their job. But we have to ensure, as we were doing
before Iraq, that to the greatest extent possible we increase the
quality of our forces. All of these reductions in standards will come
with some cost as the Army continues to go forward.
There is another similar picture with respect to retention. The
number of officers the Army needs grew by 8,000 as we increased the
size of the Army, with 58 percent of this group in captains and majors.
As the Army grows, they have to retain more and more of these captains
and majors. While the overall officer loss rate for fiscal year 2007
equaled the 10-year average of 8.5 percent, this loss rate must drop to
5 percent in order to maintain this increased size of the Army at these
critical positions of captains and majors.
What is happening is that the tempo of operations, the limited time
with family, the cycling in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, is causing
these very talented officers, captains, majors, senior noncommissioned
officers, to decide that they, for personal reasons, have to leave the
service. And this is depriving the military, not only today, but for
many years, of the talent and the skill they need, which is a great
factor in our military forces. We have got sophisticated equipment, but
if we do not have the high quality officers, senior noncommissioned
officers, in all of our services, then we will not be as effective as
we must be. The cost over the long term is a loss of many talented
young men and women who otherwise would be committed to a career in the
military.
[[Page 10143]]
We are taking efforts to retain these people with bonuses. But more
and more what I am hearing is that the financial incentives, the other
incentives, are not compensating for the time away from home, for the
treadmill in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the toll will mount
despite these incentives.
There is another aspect too of what is happening, and that is
something that has become the signature injury of these operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, the increasing number of mental health
issues arising within our forces. Post-deployment health reassessments
which are administered to servicemembers 90 to 120 days after returning
from deployment indicate that 38 percent of soldiers and 31 percent of
marines report psychological symptoms. The figure in the National Guard
is 49 percent.
Of the 1.6 million military personnel who have served in Iraq or
Afghanistan, almost 800,000 who have left active service are now
eligible for VA benefits, VA care. Of these almost 800,000 veterans,
roughly 300,000, or 37 percent, have obtained VA health care since
2001. Of this roughly 300,000, 40 percent, have been diagnosed with a
mental disorder.
That is a staggering total, a consequence of the stress, the strain,
the types of combat situations, the types of weapons deployed against
them. But that is a staggering figure. If that number is projected
throughout all of those who have served, that is a huge number of
active personnel and veterans who are suffering some type of mental
consequence of their service in Iraq.
In January, Dr. William Winkenwerder, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs, announced the Army's suicide rate in Iraq
has been about a third higher than past rates for troops during
peacetime, another very significant and very sobering statistic.
Anonymous postdeployment surveys show that 20 percent of married
soldiers plan to separate or divorce in 2006, another consequence of
this operational tempo.
The incidence of alcohol-related instances has substantially
increased over the last several years. The VA has identified that one
in four homeless persons are veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is again another sobering statistic and a result of the operations
that are being conducted and the requirements to deal effectively and
principally with those veterans who are returning and those active-duty
personnel who are returning.
We have encountered huge costs because of the failed strategy and
incompetent execution of this operation in Iraq by the administration.
We have seen over the last several months a surge that was promoted as
giving the Iraqi Government the ability to reconcile itself, but that
reconciliation has not yet been achieved.
We have seen, as I pointed out, that in Iraq today, probably the most
influential country, certainly challenging us, is not a democratic
country, but Iran, not a country that is committed as we are to the
same democratic principles.
The Maliki government is a Shia government. It is operated in
collaboration with the Kurds who have their own aspirations for
autonomy.
The odd-group-out still remains the Sunni population. We have seen
over the last several weeks operations in the south in Basra that
started off inauspiciously and ended quickly with the help of Iran. We
have seen operations now directed against the Sadr's militiamen in Sadr
City, the JAM, the Mahdi army. This is rapidly becoming a fight not
against international terrorism but a fight for power within Iraq among
various factions and sectarian groups. We are being thrown into it day
by day.
It also raises serious questions about, frankly, what we have done in
the last several years to prepare for this day, to prepare not only the
military forces in Iraq but the political institutions of Iraq to deal
effectively and peacefully, we hope, with their citizens and to help
develop a stable country that can stand on its own.
We are in a situation also where we have--and I think this was a
calculated risk, one that was taken and is working, but the question
is, How long it will work?--recognized Sunni militias. They are called
the Sons of Iraq or Concerned Local Citizens. These groups are standing
by at the moment watching as the Maliki government tries to assert its
authority over JAM and some of the Shia extremist groups. But their
future direction is uncertain. We are paying them. We have lobbied
heavily that the Government of Iraq assume this responsibility. But
there is a real question whether the Maliki government will ever truly
recognize the 91,000 Sunni militiamen who are organized in the country,
and there is the real potential that without this integration, this is
another source of not only friction but of significant conflict in
Iraq.
There are numerous scenarios that could play out. One scenario is, if
Maliki is successful to a degree in disrupting the Shia militias and
the JAM, he might decide it is now time to take care of the CLCs, the
Sons of Iraq. This could prompt significant fighting. The other
possibility is that the Sunni militias, the Sons of Iraq, the CLC,
decide the moment is right for them to reassert themselves as a much
more powerful force in the political life of Iraq. None of this is
certain. But with each passing day, we are further away from weapons of
mass destruction and international terrorism and al-Qaida. We are
closer and closer to a struggle between contending Iraqi forces for the
power to run their country. That is a struggle they must resolve. We
cannot. It is a struggle that indicates, again, that our course must be
to change our policy, to assist legitimate forces to train to go after
whatever remnants of terrorism exist in the country and any place else
in the world, and to at all times protect our forces.
Embedded in the supplemental is that policy decision which I hope we
make positively. If we can begin our redeployment, successfully and
without deviation, from Iraq, then we can begin to focus on what to me
are much more critical and central issues--al-Qaida elements in
Pakistan, the stability of the Government of Pakistan, renewed support
for the Government in Afghanistan, and the successful effort to not
only defeat the remnants of the Taliban but to do what we have not been
able to yet, which is to create political institutions that will
outlast us, that will be committed to a fair view of democracy and a
fair view of the treatment of their own people. The economic
infrastructure to support such a government, not through opium but
through legitimate commercial transaction, that, too, is a difficult
task. And then, too, I think we can focus and must focus our attention
on Iran, dealing with their nuclear aspirations and also recognizing
that ultimately our success in the region of the Persian Gulf depends
upon diplomatic efforts involving all countries in a positive way.
This is a tall order. It is a consequence of a misinformed strategy
and failed implementation. I hope we can begin with this supplemental
to change course, to move forward. I urge my colleagues to consider
this supplemental, consider the fact that we have to change direction
in Iraq and redirect resources here in the United States. I hope in
that spirit we can pass this supplemental and move forward.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today with the hope that this
Chamber will soon find consensus in our efforts to find a new course
and a new direction in Iraq.
[[Page 10144]]
I am more convinced than ever that we must change our mission in Iraq
from one of combat to one of support. We must place the responsibility
for Iraq's future and for the security of its citizens in the hands of
the Government of the Iraqi people. Until we change our mission and we
take our military out of their streets, Iraqi politicians will not take
the necessary, courageous, and final steps toward a political
reconciliation that can achieve a lasting peace for Iraq and for the
region.
Our military is performing admirably in difficult circumstances. They
have been tasked with calming streets that are wrought with sectarian
conflict, with unraveling thousand-year-old webs of Sunni, Kurd, and
Shia rivalries, with understanding the mixture of motives behind car
bombings, suicide bombings, roadside bombings, and mass executions.
They have been told that if they do this and slow the downward spiral
of civil war, the Shiite-dominated Government will press for national
reconciliation and a more stable, secure future for Iraq.
Our troops have done their job. The Iraqi Government has not done its
part. The Maliki government in Iraq has failed to capitalize on the
opportunities for success our soldiers have provided, and the
administration has failed to implement a political or a diplomatic
strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice on the battlefield.
``There is no military solution . . . to the insurgency [in] Iraq.''
That is a quote from General Petraeus. It is a quote General Petraeus
made to the world and to Members of this body many months ago. He was
right then, and he is right today.
I believe the overwhelming majority of Senators have the same goals
with respect to our future policy in Iraq. In my view, we share four
key principles and ambitions.
First and foremost, every Senator in this Chamber wants a stable Iraq
that can protect its citizens without dependence on American combat
troops. Regardless of one's position on the merits or demerits of the
invasion, we must now help Iraq stand as a sovereign nation. We must
root out the terror cells that have set up shop since the invasion. And
we must guard against a failed state. We must also find a way to help
the 2 million Iraqis who fled across the border to Jordan, to Syria,
and to Iran, as well as the nearly 2 million internally displaced
persons who have fled the violence of their neighborhoods. It is the
largest refugee crisis in the world today.
Second, we generally agree that our military mission in Iraq must
transition at some point from one of combat to one of support. We must
have the ultimate goal of bringing our troops home. We may disagree
about the number or the timing of troop drawdowns, but we all know we
cannot sustain 15 to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq indefinitely. It
will take courage and conviction to shift our mission and to bring our
troops home, but if Iraq is truly to stand on its own, we must take the
decisive action so we can begin that transition.
The third point on which I believe we can, by and large, agree is
that this war has been poorly managed. The administration made a series
of disastrous mistakes and gross miscalculations after the invasion.
Failing to plan for a postwar Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army, purging
Baathist technocrats from the Government, staffing the Coalition
Provisional Authority with neophytes, sending our troops into harm's
way without body armor or armored vehicles--these blunders have cost
America dearly. They have eroded this administration's credibility, and
they have cost us in lives and treasure.
Fourth, I believe there is a widely shared view in this Chamber that
the United States should focus its military and diplomatic efforts on
the most pressing threats to national security. Senators on both sides
of the aisle agree that our top national security priorities should be
to capture the men who were behind the attacks of September 11, to
break up the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and in Pakistan,
and to confront the nuclear threats that we see, especially from Iran.
Sustaining 140,000 troops in Iraq limits our ability to prosecute the
war on terror where terrorist training camps are actually located. Our
top intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaida has regrouped--
has regrouped stronger than ever--on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
While it is true that al-Qaida in Iraq is a franchise, al-Qaida's main
headquarters are elsewhere and not in Iraq.
Furthermore, prolonged commitments in Iraq limit our strategic
flexibility should we need to respond to threats elsewhere around the
world. We must evaluate whether putting all of our eggs in one basket
in Iraq is the best strategy to protect America against threats and
future attacks.
On these four points, I believe we should be able to find consensus
in this Chamber. Our goal of stability in Iraq, our desire to start
bringing our troops home, our shared frustration with the management of
this war, and our concern that escalation in Iraq is weakening our
defenses against terrorist threats and nuclear proliferation--these
four points of agreement lead to the conclusion that we must find a new
way forward in Iraq.
The wise heads of the Iraq Study Group laid the groundwork many
months ago for a comprehensive strategy on how we would move forward in
Iraq. We commissioned out of this Congress our finest and most
experienced foreign policy experts, led by former Secretary of State
James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, to provide us an
objective and bipartisan set of recommendations on how we should
proceed forward in this intractable war. I have reviewed this report
multiple times, the report of the Iraq Study Group. That report was
released at the end of 2006. It is a small book, but it contains great
wisdom of our top diplomats, military commanders, and statesmen from
around our country and, indeed, around the world.
The report of the Iraq Study Group laid out a political, diplomatic,
and military strategy for how we create the conditions to end this war.
Its core military recommendation is simple: It is time to transition
our troops from a mission of combat to a mission of training,
equipping, advising, and support of the Iraq military. Iraq must take
responsibility for its own security, and it must be forced to take the
political steps necessary toward that reconciliation.
Unlike the President's policy, the Iraq Study Group's prescriptions
couple a military strategy with a robust and effective diplomatic and
political strategy. The group recommended making our economic and
military support contingent upon the Iraq Government devising and
achieving specific benchmarks. While the Iraqis have made some progress
in achieving these benchmarks, much remains to be done, and most of
these benchmarks have not been met.
Finally, the report makes it very clear we need a diplomatic
offensive to help change the equation in the Middle East. Under this
diplomatic push, we would reach out to potential partners in the
region, engaging those partners in the region as we strive to have a
stake in creating long-lasting peace and stability in Iraq.
I wish to spend a few minutes now speaking about the Iraq war
provisions in the supplemental which is later on in the day formally
before the Senate. The bill before us contains many of the propositions
that would change our Iraq policy in ways that are consistent with the
Iraq Study Group's core recommendations. First and foremost, the bill
expresses the sense of the Senate that our troops' mission should
change from combat operations to counterterrorism, training and
supporting Iraqi forces, and force protection. It would set a
reasonable goal--not a deadline, a reasonable goal--of June 2009 to
complete this transition. This goal is some 15 months past the date of
March of 2008, which the Iraq Study Group originally proposed as its
target date for the completion of this transition.
This bill would require the Iraq Government to stand up to its own
responsibilities in important ways. It would be required to match any
funds we spend for training of Iraqi security
[[Page 10145]]
forces or for reconstruction. This legislation would ensure that the
U.S. military pays the same price at the pump as Iraqi civilians are
paying today, by requiring the Iraq Government to provide the same kind
of support for the fuel costs we are using to protect Iraq today. We
are spending $12 billion of America's taxpayer dollars each month in
Iraq. We are spending $12 billion of American taxpayer dollars each
month in Iraq. After more than 5 years of this war, in my view, it is
time for the Iraq Government to share this financial burden.
We also need to recognize that this administration's policies have
stretched our military to the breaking point. Our troops are away from
their families too long, they do not get enough time to train, and
readiness is suffering. Under this legislation, the President would
have to certify that troops are fully trained and equipped before they
are deployed to Iraq. It would place a time limit on combat deployments
and ensure that our troops have sufficient dwell time between tours.
Finally, the bill would ban permanent U.S. bases on Iraqi soil and
require that any mutual defense agreements with Iraq must be approved
by this Congress and by this Senate.
It is not enough to simply endorse a set of military tactics and hope
for the best, which is what the President of the United States has
done. The solution in Iraq, our military commanders tell us, is one
which is not a military solution but one which combines all those
elements that were set forth in the Iraq Study Group.
Henry Kissinger once said America needs to rid itself of ``the
illusion that there are military answers to our security, and that
policy ends where strategy begins.''
We would be wise to heed Kissinger's advice in this age of turmoil.
There are no easy answers in Iraq, no easy exits, no certainty of
success. To stay on the President's path of more of the same is simply
to embrace a policy that is not working--the same dogmatic leadership
that led us into war, the same dogmatic leadership that failed to make
a postinvasion plan, the same dogmatic leadership that chases the hope
of a mission accomplished without regard to learning the lessons of the
failures of the past.
To charge a new path--to build a political, diplomatic, and military
strategy in Iraq--is to embrace the role of a statesman. For it is a
statesman, Kissinger used to say, who takes responsibility for all the
favorable results if everything goes as planned but also for all the
undesirable results if they do not.
To serve as statesmen is our role. This is our role as Senators. It
is up to the wise heads of this body to take the long view in Iraq, to
be realistic about our options, and to consider all our national
security interests--from terrorism to nuclear threats--when pursuing
our goals of stability and peace in the Middle East.
Thank you. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FARM BILL VETO OVERRIDE
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes speaking
about the farm bill. We will be considering an override of the
President's veto hopefully later on this afternoon.
As I understand, a few hours ago, the President went ahead and vetoed
this bill which we worked on so hard in this Chamber for the last 2\1/
2\ years, under the great leadership of Senator Harkin, Senator
Chambliss, Senator Baucus, and Senator Grassley, along with Senator
Conrad and so many of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee as
well as the Senate Finance Committee. Hopefully, we can override the
President's veto quickly because what is at stake is the security of
America in so many different ways.
From what my colleagues tell me, this is the best farm bill we have
written in the Congress in the last several decades. For me, there are
significant portions of this bill which open whole new opportunities
for America, and I wish to spend a few minutes talking about what I
think some of those opportunities are.
First and foremost, we need to remind the Nation this is a bill about
feeding the hungry. It is a bill about nutrition. Nearly 70 percent of
the money under this legislation will go to feed the most vulnerable
people in America, including providing healthy food--fruits and
vegetables--for the young people of America. For my State alone, what
this will mean--I come from a small State of some 5 million people--is
that about $45 million a year in fruits and vegetables will go to help
our young kids who are in school so they can learn healthy eating
habits and so they can be in an environment where they can truly learn.
So nutrition is a very big part of this legislation. It is why hunger
advocates, the faith community, schools, and so many others have been
beating the drum so loudly for us to get this bill completed.
Second is rural development. Rural development is a huge issue for
much of this country. Today across America there are some 1,700
counties, and more than half the counties of America are designated as
rural. About 800 of those counties lost population in the last few
years. It is part of the America that is withering on the vine. Many of
the provisions of this farm bill, including rural development sections
of this farm bill, will help this part of America, which seems to be
left out, to be put into a position of being second class. This farm
bill invests heavily in rural America through the rural development
programs that are included in this legislation.
Third is conservation. Through the leadership of Senator Harkin and
his vision for what we do with conservation, the $3 billion-plus that
is added for conservation in this farm bill will help us make sure the
conservation ethic we have pursued in this country is something we can
preserve for a long time to come.
Fourth, title IX of this farm bill is the energy title. In that title
of the farm bill, we continue a policy which has been a bipartisan
policy of this Congress to try to get rid of our dependence on foreign
oil and to try to harness the power of the wind, the power of
cellulosic ethanol, the power of hydroelectricity, the power of
geothermal, and so many other renewable energy resources. Rural America
stands ready to grasp the reins of responsibility and opportunity to
help us achieve energy independence in a real way. So the energy
section of this bill is a very important part of it, and so many people
have been a part of this and have worked on this legislation.
Finally, I would say this is work which has involved the
administration now for 2\1/2\ years. It baffles me that this President
would turn his back on the people of America by vetoing this farm bill,
knowing his administration has been helping us craft this bill. The
excuse I have heard, which has been out there in public, is this farm
bill raises taxes. This farm bill doesn't raise any taxes at all.
Unlike the fiscal recklessness we have seen over the last 7 years with
this administration, what we have done is we have paid for this bill.
This bill is 100 percent paid for, and it is paid for without a tax
increase. It is paid for with the reforms we have included in this farm
bill.
So I am hopeful when this legislation does get over here to the floor
for the consideration of the override of the President's veto, we will
have a near acclamation of a vote against the President's veto of the
farm bill.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page 10146]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for approximately 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we debate the supplemental, I want to
speak about the importance of extending unemployment insurance to our
economy and to so many of our fellow Americans.
I know if Senator Kennedy were on the Senate floor today, he would be
leading this effort, lending his powerful voice, as he always does,
with fervor and passion on behalf of those in this Nation who are in
need. I certainly hope and pray that he will be with us once again
lending his voice to this and so many other critical issues.
Mr. President, we know there are Americans in need. These are
difficult economic times, not just for Americans on the bottom of the
economic ladder but for Americans from all walks of life.
In the past year alone, as this chart indicates, losses in the stock
market and in home values have totaled $2.7 trillion each--that is
trillion with a ``t.'' Foreclosures have risen 130 percent since 2006.
Some 20,000 families lose their homes every week. This combination of a
credit and housing crisis isn't just affecting Wall Street or
homeowners, but it is reaching throughout our economy and putting a
strain on businesses, large and small, from factories to restaurants.
Under the pressure of this economic squeeze, the economy has lost
260,000 jobs in the last 4 months alone. Beyond just the loss of the
jobs, what is hurting those who have lost a job is the time it is
taking to find a new job. These are not individuals who are just
sitting back and waiting for someone to offer them a job. These are
people who are actively engaged in the labor market and looking for
gainful employment, looking for the dignity of a job.
This chart shows us the average length of unemployment has risen to
almost 17 weeks--longer than at any time Congress has extended benefits
in the past 30 years. In my State of New Jersey, each week some 3,000
more unemployed workers are exhausting their benefits. It is not that
they are sitting back at home. They are engaged in the market looking
for jobs--many times even outside of their field, simply to be
gainfully employed.
While we certainly hope some of the recent efforts we have performed
in the Congress to stimulate our economy will be successful, there are
still troubling signs. Long-term unemployment is higher now than before
the last recession. Mr. President, 17.8 percent of people unemployed
find themselves searching for a job for over 27 weeks. That is a 58-
percent increase since the year 2001. Statistics show those who are
unemployed are going to have a very difficult time finding a job, as
there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans competing for only 3.8
million jobs. That is two workers for every job.
Some are struggling more than others. Veterans and minorities have
been disproportionately burdened by our struggling labor market. Young
male veterans who answered the call to protect our Nation after
September 11, 2001, are now faced with an 11.2-percent unemployment
rate--well over twice the national average. A total of 21,588 newly
discharged veterans are now unemployed and collecting unemployment
insurance.
It seems to me the last thing these brave men and women who risked
their lives dodging bullets and IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan should
have to worry about is finding a job when they come home. And when they
cannot, it seems to me the last thing they should have to worry about
is not having any income to sustain themselves and their families. Now
they are standing in an unemployment line, and pretty soon they will
not be able to do that either.
Minorities are also being hit especially hard by our current economic
conditions. For Hispanics, unemployment has grown to 6.9 percent. For
African Americans, unemployment has grown 8.6 percent. Both are well
beyond the national average. We cannot ignore the fact that the
subprime crisis has also disproportionately affected some communities
more than others. Unfortunately, for many of these hard-working
Americans, their hope of obtaining and continuing to keep the American
dream has instead become a personal nightmare.
These statistics are not just numbers. The 260,000 jobs lost this
year, the 7.6 million Americans who are unemployed, the 21,000 veterans
collecting unemployment--this is not just economic data. Behind each
number is a story and an American worker who is struggling.
Let's take a moment to imagine what it would be like to be one of
these workers. All of the Members of the Senate are gainfully employed.
But try to put yourself in the shoes of one of these American workers.
Imagine you have two kids, you have a mortgage to pay, and you just
lost your job. That alone is a scenario that could lead any family into
hard times. If you are also facing foreclosure because of a bad
subprime mortgage that has reset to a higher rate, or if losing your
job meant losing your health care insurance that provided coverage for
your children, imagine how powerless you would feel. Imagine the
uncertainty of not being able to find a job, not being able to pay for
your child's college education for the next semester, not being able to
keep the home in which your children grew up. Imagine what that must be
like.
Mr. President, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans facing
these very dire circumstances, who know all too well, unfortunately,
what it feels like. It is up to us to lend them a helping hand during
their darkest days. That is what the extension of unemployment benefits
in the supplemental will accomplish.
On top of that, we also know extending unemployment is one of the
most effective ways to help the economy. For every dollar the
Government provides in unemployment insurance, $1.64 goes right into
our economy.
While I, along with many of my colleagues, believed this should have
been part of the stimulus we had earlier, I am pleased we have another
chance.
Today, as unemployment and the cost of living continue to rise, it is
even more imperative to act now and do what is right. Mr. President,
1.4 million workers have been actively looking for a job for more than
6 months--half a year of their life actively looking for a job. As it
is becoming harder to find a job, more families are running out of
their unemployment benefits. Thirty-six percent of workers exhaust
their benefits before finding a job, and many expect that number to
increase. In March of this year, 45 percent of New Jerseyans receiving
unemployment insurance exhausted their benefits before finding a new
job.
We have a chance to fairly and reasonably address the challenges that
long-term unemployment are creating for many fellow Americans.
Extending unemployment insurance will help those who are hit hardest
and give the economy a much needed shot in the arm.
We have this opportunity to act, and act now. I cannot understand
when those who try every day, get up and go out into the market to try
to find a job--when we have twice the number of Americans as there are
jobs competing for employment--why we are saying to veterans who have
come back and others who are standing on an unemployment line that soon
that will be cut off as well. It is unconscionable.
We have an opportunity to change that in this supplemental. I hope
our colleagues who enjoy the benefits of gainful employment will give
the American workers the helping hand they need and stimulate our
economy by supporting the extension of the unemployment insurance.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
[[Page 10147]]
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about two
important components of the domestic supplemental bill which, in my
view, must be passed whenever we end up considering that legislation,
and that is the new GI educational bill and the billion dollars in the
bill for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program.
As an early cosponsor of the post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act, I am here today to ask my colleagues not only to pass
this legislation but pass it with big numbers so if President Bush
decides to veto it, we will have the votes--and he knows we will have
the votes--to override that veto.
The soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have paid a very
heavy toll. In Iraq alone, over 4,000 have died, over 30,000 have been
injured, and tens of thousands more have come home with post-traumatic
stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.
In my State of Vermont, middle-aged dads and moms have left their
families, they have left their kids, they have left their jobs, and
they have joined their fellow members of the National Guard and Reserve
in a kind of war they never dreamed they would be fighting. But they
went to war and they did their jobs, and they did their jobs well and
without complaint. They gave as much as they could give for their
country, and now it is our turn to give back, not only for them but for
the well-being of our entire economy.
The original GI bill was an appropriate way for a grateful nation to
say thank you for the service and sacrifice of those who wore our
country's uniform. That bill was not only a way to express our
appreciation to the greatest generation, but it enabled millions of
Americans to get a college education, and by doing that, it helped
reshape the American economy, it created immense wealth, and allowed
millions of Americans to enter the middle class.
There are, in fact, those who believe that the GI bill was one of the
major reasons for the strong economic spurt this country enjoyed from
the end of World War II to the early 1970s.
Unfortunately, as many returning soldiers understand, today's GI
educational benefits do not match up with what the World War II
veterans received and do not come close today to covering the cost of a
college education. That is why it is so important that we update these
benefits by passing the new GI bill, both for our Active-Duty soldiers
and for the National Guard and Reserve.
As a nation, we must understand that caring for our servicemembers is
part of the cost of going to war. If we are going to go to war, we
cannot forget about the men and women who put their lives on the line
and returned from that war.
There are some who say this bill is too generous for our
servicemembers, that we cannot afford to provide these benefits. I
disagree. If we can spend $12 billion every single month paying for the
cost of the war in Iraq, we surely can spend the equivalent of 4 months
of that war to pay for the cost of the educational benefits for these
men and women for a 10-year period.
The new GI bill will cover the highest in-State undergraduate tuition
at a public college or university where the veteran is enrolled, plus a
living stipend, and would be based on how long the veteran served in
active duty. This money could also be applied to law school, medical
school, or approved programs of study.
This is an extremely important piece of legislation. I congratulate
Senator Webb for offering it. And now it is our job to pass it.
There is another component of the domestic supplemental that also
must be passed, and that is the $1 billion in additional funding for
LIHEAP that was included in the supplemental appropriations bill
through the adoption of an amendment by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode
Island. I thank Senator Reed for offering that amendment and for
getting it passed in the Appropriations Committee by a bipartisan vote
of 20 to 9, which included 5 Republicans.
Furthermore, I have been active on that issue by authoring a letter,
which was cosigned by 20 of my colleagues, including 4 Republicans, who
also understand the absolute imperative for increasing funding for
LIHEAP.
Two years ago, under the leadership of Senator Snowe and many other
Senators, LIHEAP funding was increased by $1 billion above the
appropriated level because it was well understood that at that time, we
faced a home heating emergency. I strongly agreed with that assessment.
But if we faced a home heating emergency a year ago, we face a much
more severe home heating emergency today, and that is because the price
of heating oil and propane are escalating off the roof. They are much
higher today than they were several years ago. It is absolutely
imperative that we significantly increase funding for LIHEAP if we are
not to see the purchasing power of this program eviscerated.
While $1 billion is a good step forward, the truth is, we are going
to need a lot more than that to keep pace and level fund in terms of
real dollars what the American people are receiving from LIHEAP.
Two years ago, as you know, the price of heating oil was less than
$2.50 a gallon. Today it is about $4.50 a gallon. What I can tell you
is that last winter in the State of Vermont, there were families unable
to heat their homes. Families with children became sick because the
temperature in those homes was too low. That was last winter. Certainly
if that was the case last winter, it will only be worse next winter.
Let us be very clear that the LIHEAP program addresses not only
families who are worried about keeping warm in the wintertime, it also
addresses the very serious problem of families, especially older
people, who, when the weather gets 100-plus degrees, will be too warm
in the summertime.
It also addresses the issue of more and more Americans having their
electricity disconnected. According to the National Energy Assistance
Directors Association, which represents the State directors of LIHEAP,
a recordbreaking 15.6 million American families, or nearly 15 percent
of all households, are at least 30 days late in paying their utility
bills. Several States have laws on the books that impose a moratorium
on cutting off essential utility services in the winter. However, these
utility shutoff moratoriums expire during the spring. Without
additional LIHEAP funding, senior citizens on fixed income, low-income
families with children, and persons with disabilities from all across
this country are in danger of having their essential utility services
shut off this spring. This is going on in California, Iowa,
Massachusetts--all over this country. Rapidly rising energy costs are
the major reason so many Americans are late in paying their energy
bills. It is extremely important, therefore, that additional LIHEAP
funding be included in the supplemental to address these urgent needs.
I hope very much when we get around to addressing the domestic
supplemental bill that, A, we absolutely pass this legislation with
strong numbers for our veterans to give them the educational
opportunities they need and our country needs and, B, let us not forget
that with the cost of gas and oil soaring, millions of Americans will
go cold next winter. There are people who will suffer this summer
unless we pass an expanded LIHEAP program.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have just spoken with Senator Gregg, the
ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has graciously agreed that I
could begin to discuss the budget conference report. He is at the White
House and will be returning shortly. We have agreed in principle that
the time I consume and that perhaps he consumes when he later arrives
will be used against the 10 hours, that we will do that retroactively.
But we start without an agreement because they are working on a global
agreement as to how we will conclude the work of the Senate the
remainder of this week. Until they have that agreement, we
[[Page 10148]]
will not reach a unanimous consent agreement with respect to how we
dispose of the budget conference report.
For the information of colleagues, there is up to 10 hours allocated
to the budget conference report discussion. We hope that could be done
in less time, obviously, and that we might vote this evening, for the
notice of my colleagues, or potentially tomorrow, depending on how long
it goes and the decision of the leadership.
Before I begin the discussion of the conference agreement, I ask that
the clerk keep a close tab on the time because we will try to reach an
agreement later to retroactively apply the time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator from
North Dakota is recognized.
____________________
SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before I begin on the budget conference
report, I wish to say publicly how the entire Senate family is thinking
about Senator Kennedy and Vicki and the family, how much we miss him,
his presence on the floor, how much we miss his presence at our caucus,
and how much all of us are fervently hoping for his full and quick
recovery.
If there is anybody who can beat this, it is Ted Kennedy. He is a
lion. Rarely have I ever met somebody of such force of will, somebody
who is so totally dedicated to serving the people whom he represents,
someone who cares so deeply about America's democracy, about this
institution.
On both sides of the aisle, I have had many Senators say to me: Ted
Kennedy is simply the most productive Senator among us. Nobody turns
out more work, more quality work than he does. Whether you agree with
his legislative positions or disagree, you have to admire the
incredible energy and devotion that he brings to the job, the respect
he has for this institution, and his determination to advance causes in
which he believes.
My family has been close to the Kennedy family for many years. When
John Kennedy's advance people came to North Dakota or Robert's advance
people or Ted Kennedy's, they always stayed with my family. So I have
always felt a very close association with the Kennedy family.
Anybody who looks back on his extraordinary service here, virtually
unparalleled in the history of the Senate, has to have profound respect
for Ted Kennedy, for his work, his values, his deep and abiding love of
this country, and of the institution of the Congress, and his respect
for the Presidency of the United States.
I want Senator Kennedy to know that all of us here are pulling for
him. I want Vicki to know that we stand ready to do whatever we can to
lighten her burden and the burden of the rest of the family.
I deeply admire Senator Kennedy. Also, what a light he is in this
Chamber. He uplifts the rest of us. I have seen many times, when others
were stricken in this Chamber, the first person to call was Ted
Kennedy, always eager to help when somebody faced a tragedy.
We are thinking about Ted.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator from
Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am so grateful to the Senator. I wish to
associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota and tell him I don't know anybody in the Senate who feels
more deeply about Senator Kennedy than I do. We have been adversaries
for 32 years. We have also been partners.
I have watched what their family has given to America. I love his
sisters. I love the in-laws. I know he raised the children, and they
are good kids. I have great faith in Ted Kennedy as a person who will
fight back with the faith and prayers of all of us in the Senate and
millions of others across the country. I believe Ted will be able to
come back, and he will come back, and I believe he will be able to whip
this problem. I am going to exert all the faith and prayers I possibly
can to help him do it.
I agree with the distinguished Senator, whenever any of us
encountered great difficulty, he was always the first to call.
We have worked together on so many pieces of legislation, landmark
legislation, that I wish to personally compliment him for being willing
to cross the aisle in so many ways and to work out difficulties. One of
the last things we worked on was the bio bill. That is a very complex,
difficult bill, and we worked along with Senator Enzi, who is a
wonderful companion of Senator Kennedy on the HELP Committee. We worked
with Senator Clinton, who added a great deal to the work on that bill.
Senator Schumer was a great asset on that bill. These are people for
whom I have great respect.
Let me say to Ted and Vicki that our prayers and our faith are with
both of them and their children and the rest of the extended family,
and we will do everything in our power to support Senator Kennedy in
this time of difficulty. I personally believe that if we have enough
faith and pray hard enough and with the great clinical help he will
have, Senator Kennedy will return and continue to do the job he
believes in. I know he appreciates everybody who has spoken out for
him, who has expressed concern, who has expressed anguish, as I do
here, about his present situation. I know he is facing this with a
great sense of humor, which is one of the most endearing qualities Ted
Kennedy has, among many endearing qualities.
He carries so much weight on the Democrat side and, of course, for
those of us who work with him on the Republican side, a lot of weight
with us as well. So I want him to know we all love him, appreciate him,
and appreciate the leadership he has provided through the years and the
quality of the person he is.
If the distinguished Senator would allow me to address another topic,
I would be very grateful.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these new sets of remarks
be placed in the Record at an appropriate place.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I will have more to say about Senator Kennedy later, but I
wanted to make those few remarks here today.
____________________
COMBATING CHILD EXPLOITATION
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the exploitation of children is a plague.
It is a war with many fronts, and we must be engaged in them all. I
wish to review some of the ways we are fighting this good fight and
encourage my colleagues to be as relentless in protecting children as
are those in the world who exploit them.
Just 2 days ago, the Supreme Court upheld our most recent attempt to
combat the spread of child pornography. In a 7-to-2 decision--an
overwhelming vote by the Supreme Court, by the way--the Court held that
the PROTECT Act is consistent with the first amendment. I introduced
the PROTECT Act in January 2003. It passed this body unanimously in
February, passed the House without objection in March, and was signed
into law in April. The PROTECT Act prohibits the pandering or
solicitation of child pornography.
Child pornography is perhaps the most egregious form of exploitation.
It not only victimizes and brutalizes children directly but makes a
permanent record of that abuse that may never be erased. Child
pornography is not protected by the first amendment, which means its
possession and sale can be banned.
In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography
Prevention Act, a bill I introduced in the 104th Congress. So we went
back to the drawing board. If the objective is important--and I do not
believe any objective is more important than protecting children from
exploitation--then we must not take no for an answer. We must not let
speed bumps, roadblocks, or potholes, or Supreme Court decisions stop
us.
[[Page 10149]]
The PROTECT Act was the result. We studied the Supreme Court's
decision and used its guidance to craft a bill that would prohibit the
offer to distribute or the request to receive child pornography. When
it upheld the PROTECT Act this week, the Court said that the speech
this law targets is what literally introduces this destructive material
into the distribution network. Now the PROTECT Act can be deployed in
our ongoing, never-ending fight to protect children from exploitation,
and I am glad it can be deployed.
I thank my colleagues for not giving up, for not throwing up your
hands when the Supreme Court initially said no. I thank you for rolling
up your sleeves, for joining with me to find some way to protect
children.
Let me quote from the closing paragraph of Justice Antonin Scalia's
opinion this week in United States v. Williams:
Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of
our citizens. This court held unconstitutional Congress'
previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress
responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the
First Amendment problems we identified. As far as the
provision at issue in this case is concerned, that effort was
successful.
While the 108th Congress passed the PROTECT Act, the 109th Congress
passed the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act was a comprehensive child
protection bill hailed by agencies and organizations throughout this
country for its importance.
This legislation enhanced the Web technology available for tracking
convicted sex offenders and replaced outdated and inaccurate Web sites
with meaningful tools to protect children.
Today, there are more than half a million registered sex offenders in
the United States. Unfortunately, many of them receive limited
sentences and roam invisibly through our communities. With too many, we
don't know where they are until it is too late. Under this law,
offenders are now required to report regularly to the authorities in
person and let them know when they move or change jobs. If they do not
want to follow the rules, they will go back to jail because failure to
provide meaningful information is now a felony. In addition, the law
created a searchable national Web site that interacts with State sites.
Citizens in every State are able to inform themselves about predators
in their communities with accurate information.
Unfortunately, many of the enforcement provisions in the Adam Walsh
Act have not been funded, and I am fully aware of the competing demands
for funding but have no doubt that Americans throughout this country
would approve of Federal tax dollars being utilized to ensure that
criminals who blatantly trade in child pornography are made to pay a
high price for these crimes. I urge my colleagues to show their
dedication and resolve to fully fund the Adam Walsh Act.
In another important development, last night the Senate passed the
Protect Our Children First Act. I joined Senator Leahy in introducing
this legislation last July, and it is now on its way to the President
to be signed into law. This legislation authorizes continued funding
for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a center we
helped to create. The collective expertise of the center has been
invaluable in efforts to address child exploitation, and this bill will
ensure their vital work will continue.
With all of the tremendous advantages brought about by the Internet,
it has also provided a means of communication which criminals use to
advance their crimes. We are all aware that pedophiles are utilizing
the Internet to facilitate distribution of illegal child pornography.
Everyone agrees this type of crime is the most heinous imaginable, but
many think the people who trade these horrendous videos and pictures
must set up elaborate technology to facilitate their illegal
activities. Unfortunately, this is not true. Many individuals
throughout this country utilize peer-to-peer software to share illegal
child porn with as much ease as sharing MP3s. Many criminals don't even
bother trying to hide what they are doing. They utilize graphic words
and acronyms to describe the horrible pictures and videos which they
willingly share with one another. They seem to have no fear of being
caught by law enforcement.
To illustrate this point, I want to highlight a graphical
representation of the locations where law enforcement determined child
pornography videos were hosted on computers and shared via peer-to-peer
software. It is as disturbing as it is eye-opening.
This map shows the continental United States and locations where
child pornography was electronically traded on May 15, 2008. This is
just 1 day in the life of this country--6 days ago, as a matter of
fact. And it is not meant to be all-inclusive; these are the ones we
know of. You can imagine how many there must be. Just in the DC area,
look at the child pornography electronic trades. And those are the ones
we know about.
Now, this type of activity has created a market for new child
pornography. In order to move into the higher echelons of this criminal
activity, individuals need to offer new material, new graphic pictures
and videos. Many of these criminals find that the easiest way to get
new materials is to make it themselves; thus, a vicious cycle is
created. These monsters, in some sick, sadistic goal of obtaining
stature, videotape their crimes against children in order to facilitate
their twisted version of moving up the ladder.
Congress has done a great deal to address this issue. We have passed
numerous statutes in order to ensure those who harm children face the
most serious penalties possible.
While many local law enforcement agencies are doing a fantastic job
addressing these crimes, they are often limited by a lack of manpower
and equipment. One program that has had great success is the Internet
Crimes Against Children--the ICAC--Task Force Program, which has
utilized State and local law enforcement agencies to develop an
effective response to child pornography cases. These ICACs provide
forensic and investigative activities, training and technical
assistance, victim services, and community education.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation, which I
cosponsored with Senator Biden of Delaware, which would take
significant steps in highlighting the Federal Government's strategy to
address child exploitation and ensuring that each State has an ICAC.
The bill also calls for an annual report from the Attorney General,
which will represent the national strategy for child exploitation,
prevention, and interdiction. I believe this report will be invaluable
for the effective coordination of Government efforts to address this
problem.
I have no doubts this legislation will be instrumental in combating
child exploitation, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill quickly.
I also wish to mention another extremely valuable organization that
is playing a vital role in locating missing children. A Child is
Missing is a nonprofit organization assisting the police in the first
hours after a child's disappearance. For over 10 years, this
organization has provided local law enforcement with technology
otherwise unavailable to them.
Here is how the program works. When a child is missing, local law
enforcement contacts the organization with details of the
disappearance, including the child's description, clothes, and last
known location. A Child is Missing records a message on behalf of the
police agency, and this message is phoned out to the geographical area
where the child was last seen. The organization has the ability to send
over 1,000 calls in 60 seconds. This message asks for residents to
contact the police if they have any information.
The effect is instantaneous in that this service opens the eyes of
the entire neighborhood in search for the missing child. We all know
these first few hours are critical in finding missing children, making
this service critical. This is the only program of its kind in the
country, and law enforcement has credited it with over 300 safe
assisted recoveries. This service is available to law enforcement
throughout the country
[[Page 10150]]
and at no charge to the agencies. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year.
I have joined Senator Menendez in introducing legislation, S. 2667,
to ensure that this organization will have the funds to continue to
offer law enforcement throughout this country this invaluable service.
I am hopeful this bill receives prompt consideration.
In conclusion, Congress has many opportunities to advance the worthy
cause of reducing child exploitation. I call on my colleagues to
continue this noble cause and pledge my continued support to advance
appropriate legislative endeavors.
____________________
FISA
Mr. HATCH. Finally, I wish to briefly turn to FISA. This Congress has
been working on FISA modernization for over 400 days with apparently no
end in sight. Should it take this long? The Constitution of the United
States was written in about 115 days. That included travel time on
horseback for the Founding Fathers.
Congress has had plenty of time to debate this issue. We have to make
sure we do not create unnecessary obstacles for intelligence analysts
to track terrorists. As has been said, they can't connect the dots if
they can't collect the dots.
While negotiations continue, it is important to look at the two bills
that have passed the Chambers. Let me paint a picture, a Tale of Two
Bills, if you will. One bill was available for the public to review for
over 4 months, went through 2 committees, had 2 weeks of floor debate
including votes on 13 amendments, and passed the Chamber with a huge
bipartisan veto-proof majority.
The other bill was available for review for 2 days before receiving a
vote. It went through no committees, had 1 hour of floor debate,
allowed no amendments, and failed to receive bipartisan support, while
barely passing the Chamber. Any negotiator would say the first bill in
this instance would be the basis for negotiation, not the other way
around. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that the first one I
described is the Senate-passed bill.
Make no mistake, I will not support any compromise that disregards
the extensive work of the Senate in order to facilitate a quick
political fix.
I appreciate those who are standing tall on the FISA bill in both
Houses. I hope we continue to do so because our very country is in
jeopardy if we do not.
Also, I wish to personally pay tribute and give my gratitude and
thanks to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his kindness
in allowing me to make these remarks out of turn because they are
important remarks. I would feel badly if I didn't get on the floor and
make these remarks. It was a very gracious thing for him to do.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague, Senator Hatch. He is always
gracious. I also thank him for his words on Senator Kennedy because we
know they have shared a close association in the Chamber for many
years.
I also thank him for his leadership on child pornography. It is
pretty sick, some of the things that go on. It is almost hard to
believe. I saw the slide the Senator from Utah showed about activity on
just 1 day of this year, earlier this month. It is almost hard to
comprehend. We thank him for his leadership there as well.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his kindness. He has always been
very gracious and particularly gracious to me.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be in a
period of morning business, that Senators be permitted to speak for up
to 10 minutes each, and that the clerk keep a close count on the time
consumed and that this period be for debate only. We are asking
colleagues--we do not have a unanimous consent agreement--but we are
asking colleagues to confine their remarks to the budget because we
have up to 10 hours and, in the interest of getting the work of the
Senate done before the break, it will be most effective and most
efficient if we can focus our time on that.
I ask unanimous consent that after I am done, Senator Gregg be
recognized, that I be allowed such time as consumed and the Senator
then be given that same opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
THE BUDGET
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are now considering the conference
report on the budget. For the knowledge of my colleagues, and
especially my colleague, Senator Gregg, I will consume somewhere in the
range of 35 minutes. If he has other things to do, we can get that word
to him so he is not inconvenienced while I make an opening statement.
Here is what we are confronting--a very dramatic deterioration in the
budget condition of our country. You can see, in 2007, the official
deficit was $162 billion; that is down from what had been record
levels. We achieved an all-time--not achieved, there is no achievement
to it--we saw an all-time record deficit in 2004 of $413 billion. That
became the record. The year before was the record up until that point--
$378 billion in the red. Of course, the real situation is far worse
because this does not disclose how much the debt has been increased.
Then we saw some improvement, to 2007, a deficit of $162 billion. But
now we are right back at record levels--$410 billion estimated for this
year. I believe it is going to be even worse, and 2009 will be about
the same level.
When I talk about debt, here is what I am talking about. The gross
debt of the United States has gone up like a scalded cat under this
administration. When this President came into office at the end of the
first year, the debt stood at $5.8 trillion. By the time we are done
with the 8 years he will have been responsible for, the debt will have
increased to more than $10.4 trillion--a near doubling of the debt of
the country. Increasingly, this money is being borrowed from abroad. As
this chart shows, it took 42 Presidents--all the Presidents pictured
here, 224 years to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad. This
President has far more than doubled that amount in just 7 years. There
are over $1.5 trillion of foreign holdings of U.S. debt run up by this
President in just 7 years. He has taken what 42 Presidents took 224
years to do and he doubled it and then added another 50 percent to
foreign holdings of U.S. government debt. The result is we owe Japan
over $600 billion, we owe China almost $500 billion, we owe the United
Kingdom a little over $200 billion, we owe the oil exporters over $150
billion. My goodness, we owe Hong Kong over $60 billion. We now owe
Russia over $40 billion. That is a sad fiscal record, but that is the
legacy of this President's fiscal policy.
This tremendous runup in foreign debt means we have spread dollars
all over the world and are now increasingly dependent on the kindness
of strangers to finance our debt here. One of the results of that has
been a substantial drop in the value of our currency. If you think
about it, the value of a currency is in part a reflection of supply and
demand. When you put out a tremendous supply of dollars, guess what
happens to the value of the dollar--it goes down. That is what has
happened.
You can see back in 2002, this is Euros per dollar. It was 1.13 in
January 2002. Through the end of last month, we were down to .63. The
value of the dollar against the Euro has dropped like a rock. It has
dropped 44 percent.
If anybody is wondering why food prices are going up so rapidly, why
oil prices are going up so rapidly, here is one of the key reasons.
Those commodities are sold in dollar terms in the world market. When
the dollar goes down in value, guess what happens to the value of
commodities: there is tremendous upward pressure on their value. That
is what, in fact, has happened.
We have also seen the economic growth of the country stagnate. You
[[Page 10151]]
can see, if we look at the nine previous business cycles we have
experienced since World War II, you can see that economic growth
averaged 3.4 percent a year during previous business cycle expansions.
But, if we look at average annual economic growth since the first
quarter of 2001, we see it is stagnating at 2.4 percent.
Something is happening in this business cycle that is unlike what we
have seen in the nine major business cycles we have seen since World
War II. We see this recovery is much weaker. We see it in job creation;
we see it in business investment.
For example, on job creation, if you look at job creation, again
looking at the nine previous business cycles since World War II, and
you look at the months after the business cycle peak and look at job
creation--this dotted red line is the average of the nine other major
business cycles since World War II--that is the dotted red line. Now,
this other line is the current business cycle. You can see that we are
10.3 million private sector jobs short of the typical recovery since
World War II. In other words, if you take all the previous nine major
business recoveries since World War II and you average them, compare
them to this business recovery, we are running 10.3 million private-
sector jobs short in this recovery.
What does that tell us? That tells us something is wrong, something
is wrong with our economic performance.
We don't just see it in job creation. We see it in business
investment. Again, the dotted red line is the average of the nine
previous recoveries since World War II. The black line is this
recovery. You can see that we are now running 59 percent below the pace
of business investment at the same point during the nine previous
recoveries. Something quite significant is happening in terms of our
national economy. Anybody who does not see this and understand it and
seek to find solutions to it, I think is missing the point. There is
something wrong with the underlying economy that has been affecting us
since 2001. It is so atypical, it is so different than the other nine
recoveries since World War II.
This budget resolution seeks to address some of what we know. It
seeks to strengthen the economy and create jobs in several different
ways, first, by investing in energy, education, and infrastructure. We
think those are priorities to strengthen the economy. It expands health
care coverage for our children; it provides tax cuts for the middle
class; it restores fiscal responsibility by balancing the budget by the
fourth and fifth year of this 5-year budget plan.
It also seeks to make America safer by supporting our troops, by
providing for veterans health care, by rejecting our homeland and
rejecting the President's cuts in law enforcement, the COPS Program,
and for our first responders, our emergency personnel, our
firefighters, our emergency medical responders.
In terms of the tax relief that is in this budget resolution, this
budget conference report that has come back from an agreement with the
House of Representatives, we do the following things. We extend middle-
class tax relief, specifically: the marriage penalty relief is provided
for; the child tax credit is provided for; and an extension of the 10-
percent bracket.
We also provided for alternative minimum tax relief, because we know
if we did not, the number of people who would be exposed to the
alternative minimum tax would explode from roughly 4 million now to 26
million if we failed to take action.
We also provided for estate tax reform. Right now we are in this
bizarre situation where the estate tax goes up to $3.5 million of
exemption per person in 2009; the estate tax goes away completely in
2010, there is no estate tax; and then in 2011, it comes back with only
a $1 million exemption. We say that makes no sense at all. We should
extend the $3.5 million provision per person, $7 million a couple, and
index it for inflation.
We also provided for energy and education tax cuts to provide
incentives to develop alternative forms of energy and reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. We also provided property tax relief and, of
course, the popular and important tax extenders, things such as the
window energy credit, the solar credit, the research and
experimentation credit. All of those are provided for in this budget.
We balance the books by the fourth year, $22 billion in the black, or
in this case in the green, by 2012. By 2013 we maintain balance, all
the while we are bringing down the debt as a share of gross domestic
product from 69.3 percent of GDP to 65.6 percent of GDP in 2013. So we
are bringing down the debt as a share of gross domestic product each
and every year of this budget resolution. Let me be the first to say,
that is not enough. We need to be doing more. I will say in a minute
how I think we can and should do more. But this is an important
beginning.
One of the ways we do it is we restrain spending. Under this budget
conference report, we bring down spending as a share of GDP each and
every year of the 5-year plan from 20.8 percent of GDP down to 19.1
percent in 2012 and 2013.
The other side will be quick to say, but you are spending more money
than the President is. That is true, we are spending somewhat more
money than the President, because we have rejected his cuts to law
enforcement, to our first responders, and to other things we think are
priorities of the American people.
But when they talk about the difference in spending, they have a
tendency to dramatically overstate the difference. Here is the
difference between our spending line, which is in green, and the
President's spending line. If you are looking at this on television,
you probably cannot see any difference. That is because there is almost
no difference between our spending line and the President's spending
line.
In fact, for this year, the difference in total spending between our
budget and the President's budget is 1 percent. That is the difference,
1 percent. Over the life of this 5-year plan, you can see it is a very
modest difference.
Let me turn to 2009, because that is the most immediate year covered
by this budget plan. You can see the Bush budget calls for $3.03
trillion of spending. We call for $3.07 trillion of spending. Again the
fundamental differences are, we are investing in education, in energy
to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, and on infrastructure which is
so critically important to our future economic success.
On the revenue side of the equation, we also have somewhat more
revenue than the President's plan because we have lower deficits and
lower debt than the President's plan. Here you can see the difference.
The green line is our revenue line; the red line is the President's
revenue line. You can see in the first 2 years there is virtually no
difference between our revenue lines; they are right on top of each
other. In 2011 there is a slight difference, and 2012, 2013, as we
climb out of deficit and balance the books.
But again the differences are quite modest, and here they are over
the 5 years. We are calling for $15.6 trillion of revenue, the
President is calling for $15.2 trillion of revenue. That is a
difference of 2.9 percent. That is the difference between the revenue
we have proposed, which leads to lower deficits and lower debt than the
President's plan.
You will hear our friends on the other side say, this represents the
biggest tax increase in the history of the world. We beg to disagree.
We do not think any tax increase is necessary to meet these numbers. If
someone is listening and they heard me say, well, Senator, you said you
have got more revenue, although it is only 2.9 percent more revenue,
than in the President's plan, but you say you can do that without a tax
increase, how is that? How can you do that?
Well, here is how I would propose to do it. First, the Internal
Revenue Service estimates the tax gap, the difference between what is
owed and what is paid, is $345 billion a year, the difference between
what is owed and what is paid.
Now the vast majority of us pay what we owe. But unfortunately there
are an increasing number of people and companies who do not pay what
they owe.
[[Page 10152]]
That difference is now estimated at $345 billion a year. That goes back
to 2001. I personally believe it has grown substantially since then so
it would be a higher number. But that is not the only place where there
is leakage in the system. I have shown this chart many times on the
floor of the Senate. This is a five-story building in the Cayman
Islands called Ugland House. This little building down in the Cayman
Islands is the home to 12,748 companies. Let me repeat that. This
little five-story building down in the Cayman Islands is the home, at
least they say it is their home, to 12,748 companies. They say they are
all doing business out of this building.
Now I have said that is the most efficient building in the world,
little tiny building like that, and it houses 12,000 companies. How can
any building be that efficient? Well, we know they are not doing
business there. They are doing monkey business, and the monkey business
they are doing is to avoid taxes in this country. And how do they do
it? Well, they operate through a series of shell corporations, and they
show their profits in the Cayman Islands instead of the United States
to avoid taxes here. Why would they do that? Do they not have taxes
down in the Cayman Islands? No. Is that not convenient? So they do not
show their profits here, even though they make their profits here, they
show their profits down in the Cayman Islands. That is the kind of scam
that is going on. If you doubt it, here is a story that came to us from
the Boston Globe on March 6 of this year:
Shell companies in the Cayman Islands allow KBR [that is
Kellogg, Brown and Root] the nation's top Iraq war
contractor, and until last year a subsidiary of Halliburton,
has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal
Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through
shell companies based in this tropical tax haven.
More than 21,000 people working for Kellogg, Brown and Root
in Iraq, including about 10,500 Americans, are listed as
employees of two companies that exist in a computer file on
the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard
here in the Caribbean. Neither company has an office or phone
number in the Cayman Islands, but they claim it is their
home.
This is a scam. That is what is going on here. This is the largest
defense contractor in Iraq, and they are engaged in a total scam to
avoid taxes in this country. If this does not make people angry, I do
not know what it would take, because what they are doing is they are
sticking all of the rest of us who are honest with our tax obligations.
It does not stop there.
Here our own Permanent Committee on Investigations issued this report
last year:
Experts have estimated that the total loss to the Treasury
from offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion per
year, including $40 to $70 billion from individuals, and
another $30 billion from corporations engaging in offshore
tax evasion. Abusive tax shelters add tens of billions of
dollars more.
So when somebody says: Well, you have got to raise taxes to produce
2.9 percent more revenue than the President has called for, I say, no,
you do not. Let us go after some of this stuff. Let us go after these
offshore tax havens. Let us go after these abusive tax shelters. Let us
go after this tax gap.
Now, the other side will say, well, there is nothing you can do about
it. Well, certainly there is nothing you can do about it if you do not
try. You cannot do a thing if you do not try. But if you try, you can
get this money. Let me say, I know you can, because I used to be the
tax commissioner for my State. I was the chairman of the Multistate Tax
Commission. I went after this money. I got hundreds of millions of
dollars for my little State of North Dakota going after some of these
scams. The United States could do much more.
Here is a picture of a foreign sewer system. This is a sewer system
that is in France. Why do I put up a picture of a sewer system in
Europe when I am talking about the budget of the United States? Well,
because the two have a linkage. What is the linkage? The connection is
that we actually have investors in this country buying European sewer
systems, not because they are in the sewer business, no, no, no. They
are buying European sewer systems to reduce their taxes in this
country. How do they do it? It is very simple. They go over, they buy a
European sewer system, they then show that on their books as a
depreciable asset. They depreciate it over a period of years to reduce
their taxes in this country, and then lease the sewer system back to
the European city or municipality that built it in the first place.
Now, why should we allow that? This is the kind of thing I think we
can shut down and easily achieve 2.9 percent more revenue than the
President has proposed. The question comes, well, why haven't you done
something about shutting down these scams already? There is a very
simple reason we have not. It is called the President of the United
States. Because the President of the United States has repeatedly
blocked attempts to shut down these scams.
Here are a few of the examples. We tried to codify economic
substance, prohibiting transactions with no economic rationale, things
that were done solely to avoid taxes. The President threatened a veto.
We tried to shut down schemes to lease foreign subway and sewer
systems and depreciate the assets in this country. The President
threatened a veto.
We proposed ending deferral of offshore compensation by hedge fund
managers trying to evade taxes in our country. The President threatened
to veto it.
We proposed expanding broker information reporting so we could close
down some of this tax gap. The President threatened a veto.
We proposed taxing people who give up their U.S. citizenship in order
to evade taxes here in America. The President threatened a veto.
Now, I have indicated, I have acknowledged, we have 2.9 percent more
revenue in our plan than in the President's budget.
The other side will say: Biggest tax increase in the history of the
world. That is exactly the same speech they gave last year. Now we have
the benefit of a record. Because we can look back, we can look at the
speeches they gave last year, and we can look at what has actually
happened this year. We can see, what did this Democratic Congress do?
Did they raise taxes? No. In fact, here is precisely what happened:
They reduced taxes in the House and the Senate by $194 billion. They
had offsetting loophole closers, for a net tax reduction of $187
billion.
Anybody who is listening can reality test. Just go to your mailbox.
Have you gotten a little check from the U.S. Treasury representing a
tax cut as part of a stimulus package? Millions of Americans have, and
millions more will. That is part of this $194 billion of tax reduction
that has occurred with Democrats running both Houses, despite claims of
our colleagues on the other side that we were going to have the biggest
tax increase ever.
We all know some of the things that are happening in this economy.
One is that gasoline prices are soaring. I filled up my car last week.
I have a 1999 Buick. I know people think all Senators have limousines
and drivers. Not me. I have a 1999 Buick that I drive myself. I filled
it up last week, $52.19. The price of gasoline has soared.
In January of 2001, gas was $1.47 a gallon; in May of 2008, $3.79. We
are hearing by Memorial Day gas average $4 nationwide. We have
addressed that in this budget by investing in energy, creating green
jobs, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and strengthening the
economy.
We have provided for energy tax incentives in this budget. We have
provided for $2.8 billion over the President's budget for energy to
provide for alternative sources of energy, homegrown sources of energy
so we are less dependent on foreign oil. We have also created an energy
reserve fund to invest in clean energy and the environment. But we know
skyrocketing gas prices are not our only problem.
We also know if we look at what is happening to education, we are
falling behind our global competition. This is one metric to look at
that, the number of engineering degrees in China and the number of
engineering degrees in this country. The red line is China's
engineering degrees. You can see they are
[[Page 10153]]
absolutely soaring. There are over 350,000 a year graduating as
engineers in China. In this country, we are down here at about 75,000
engineering graduates. Engineering is critical to future economic
growth. We know that. So that has to be a concern. Here, China is now
graduating 350,000 engineers a year; we are in the 75,000 range. That
is something we have to pay attention to. Obviously, I have used one
example. There are many others.
This budget resolution invests in education to generate economic
growth and jobs, to prepare our workforce to compete in a global
economy, to make college more affordable, and to improve student
achievement. We have provided for education tax incentives to encourage
people to go to college. We have provided $5.5 billion over the
President's budget in discretionary funding for education, and we have
created an education reserve fund for school construction and for the
reauthorization of the higher education legislation.
It doesn't stop there. We also have serious infrastructure issues in
this country. Here is a picture of the dramatic collapse of the bridge
on 35-W between Minneapolis and St. Paul last year. I am acutely
familiar with this bridge because when my wife was in medical school, I
went across that bridge many times a week. Can you imagine the absolute
horror of the people who were on that bridge? Here are the cars of
people who were on that bridge when it fell out from underneath them.
This was at rush hour last year, one of the most heavily used bridges
in the State of Minnesota.
This budget seeks to address infrastructure by providing targeted
investments to repair crumbling roads and bridges, improve mass
transit, expand airports and schools. It creates a reserve fund to
allow for major infrastructure legislation. It provides $2.5 billion
more than the President for key discretionary transportation accounts.
It fully funds highways, transit, and increases funding for the Airport
Improvement Program.
This budget resolution also deals with other critical national
priorities, including fully funding the defense requests of the
President. The President has asked for $2.9 trillion over the next 5
years. This budget provides $2.9 trillion. We also provide $3.3 billion
more for our veterans health care than the President. The President has
called for $44.9 billion over a 5-year period. We have adopted the
independent budget, which is a budget that was put together by the
veterans organizations to more fairly reflect the needs we see coming
because of veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have
allocated $3.3 billion more than the President for that purpose. We
think we owe these veterans the high-quality care they were promised.
All of us who have been to our VA hospitals, who have been to Walter
Reed, are acutely aware of the need for more investment in those
facilities. We have also provided in this budget, in fiscal year 2009,
$2.8 billion more than the President's budget for law enforcement and
first responders. Inexplicably, at least to this Senator, the President
has called for the complete elimination of the COPS Program. The COPS
Program has put 100,000 police officers on the street, over 200
officers on the street in my home State of North Dakota. The President,
in his budget, didn't just call for cutting that program. He called for
its total elimination. It makes no sense to me. I just had my house
here broken into while I was back home during the break. I have a
fellow who rents from me in the basement. He came home from work and
our place had been broken into. The place was totally trashed. Many of
his things were stolen. Why we would take police off the street when,
in jurisdiction after jurisdiction, we are facing heightened criminal
activity doesn't make any sense.
I am getting to the end. I know my colleague has been riveted
listening to me talk about these charts. He has only had a chance to
see them maybe 12 times. I thank him for his patience.
We also have budget enforcement in the budget resolution,
discretionary caps for 2008 and 2009. We maintain a strong pay-go rule
that I know my colleague will probably want to comment on. We also have
a point of order against long-term deficit increases, a point of order
against short-term deficit increases. We allow reconciliation for
deficit reduction only. I know this is a place where my colleague will
agree. I am sure he is pleased that we don't have a reconciliation
instruction in this conference report for any other purpose, and we
have no reconciliation instruction for any purpose.
We also have a point of order against mandatory spending on an
appropriations bill. Again, this is something the Senator will strongly
support because we have seen the games that were beginning to be played
when the appropriators figured out they could start to do that. We
tried to shut it down or at least to create a budget point of order,
maintain a budget point of order to prevent that practice from
expanding.
The budget conference report also addresses long-term fiscal
challenges. I don't want to overstate this because, the truth is, I
don't believe an annual budget resolution is the place to deal with the
long-term fiscal challenges facing the country. The annual resolutions
tend to be done on a partisan basis. Our fiscal challenges are so big,
so deep, my own conviction is this has to be done with a special
process, a special procedure.
The Senator, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and I
have teamed up to offer our colleagues legislation that would create a
bipartisan task force that would be responsible for coming up with a
plan to deal with our long-term challenges, our fiscal challenges, the
imbalance between spending and revenue, and the overcommitments we have
made on the entitlement programs.
The proposal we have made is very different from what others have
made because our proposal would require a vote in the Congress, not
another commission report that sits on a dusty shelf somewhere. That is
not going to cut it. We need a plan. We need a plan that is bipartisan.
We need a plan that gets a vote. The Senator and I have a plan to do
that.
While we are getting ready for that process to occur--and I hope it
will--we have provided for a comparative effectiveness reserve fund to
deal with health care, a health information technology reserve fund--
the Rand Corporation has told us we could save $80 billion a year if we
had information technology widely deployed in the health area, program
integrity initiatives to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse in
Medicare and Social Security, and a long-term deficit point of order to
guard against legislative initiatives that would increase the long-term
deficit.
Finally, as I mentioned, Senator Gregg and I have a proposal to
address these long-term imbalances, a panel of lawmakers and
administration officials with an agenda of everything being on the
table, with fast-track consideration, and a requirement that Congress
must vote. If the members of this task force, at least a supermajority
of them, were to agree on a plan, that plan would come to Congress for
an assured vote and a further assurance that there would be a
bipartisan outcome because we would require not only a supermajority of
the task force to report a plan but a supermajority in Congress to pass
it as well.
Before surrendering the floor, I thank Senator Gregg for his many
courtesies and the very constructive way that he has helped run the
Committee on the Budget throughout this year. He is a gentleman, a
person of honor whose word is gold. I deeply appreciate that. I also
appreciate very much the professionalism of his staff.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first, I thank the chairman of the
committee, the Senator from North Dakota, for his generous comments and
reciprocate by saying it is a pleasure to work with him. Obviously, we
have disagreements or we wouldn't be in different parties. That is the
purpose of democracy. You have disagreements and reach some conclusion
that, hopefully, is constructive for all.
[[Page 10154]]
The budget, unfortunately, tends to be a uniquely partisan statement
of a party's political positions. Therefore, it is more difficult to
reach agreement, especially when the Congress has both Houses of the
same party. But that doesn't mean you can't do it in a cordial and,
hopefully, constructive way, have your disagreements, and make your
points.
I appreciate that the Senator from North Dakota has always been
cordial and professional and constructive, as has his staff, to say the
least.
I don't want to start off with too much hat tipping to the Senator
from North Dakota; I don't want to get carried away. Let me simply say
this: It is important that the Congress have a budget. It is uniquely
the Congress's responsibility to have a budget. Although the
President's budget gets soundly beaten about the ears here, the
President's budget is not a factor in the sense that it is part of the
congressional budget process.
The congressional budget is uniquely an entity of the Congress. The
Congress passes it. It does not go to the President for his signature.
The elements of the budget which are most important, such as the
allocations to the Appropriations Committee, such as reconciliation
instructions, are uniquely the purpose of the Congress as a way of
giving a blueprint and defining spending and tax revenues within the
fiscal policy of the Congress.
The Congress retains, under the Constitution, the right to the purse
strings, and the budget is an element of exercising that right. So
although the President sends up a budget under the Budget Act, that
budget rarely, if ever, becomes law. I am not aware it has ever become
law. It is simply a point for discussion. When you have a Democratic
Congress and a Republican President, it tends to be discussed less
other than in opposition by the Congress.
So this budget is totally the responsibility of the Democratic
Congress. It is passed by the Democratic membership of the Congress,
not by the Republican membership of this Congress, and the President's
input is at the margins, to say the least. But it is important there be
a budget. Even though I may strongly disagree with it, I do think it is
the responsibility of the Congress to do a budget.
Thirdly, as a note of appreciation, I do thank the Senator from North
Dakota for his insistence that reconciliation instructions not be
included in the bill. Reconciliation is an extraordinarily strong
hammer which is contained within the Budget Act which allows basically
the Budget Committee to, hopefully, control the expansion of
entitlement programs. Unfortunately, last year, it was used to expand
Government, not to control the rate of expansion of Government, and
that was a mistake, a serious mistake that undermined, in my opinion,
the integrity of the act. I am glad we are not doing it this year, and
I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota insisting on the Senate
position on this issue.
To address the budget specifically, this budget, as it is brought
forward by our colleagues, by the Democratic membership, is a ``back to
the future'' budget. You hear Senator Obama say he wants change. Well,
this is ``back to the future'' change. It is essentially a restatement
of things which always happens under a Democratic Congress. It says:
Yes, we can raise taxes and a lot of taxes. It says: Yes, we can
increase spending and a lot of new spending. It says: Yes, we can run
up the debt and a lot of new debt. It says: Yes, we will not address
entitlements and the fact that entitlement spending is a major threat
to our fiscal integrity.
It is a ``back to the future'' budget. The term ``tax and spend''
exists. It may be trite, but it exists because it is accurate. This
budget has the largest increase in taxes in the history of the world.
It has one of the largest increases in spending. It has a $500 billion
increase in entitlement spending, a $200-plus billion increase in
discretionary spending. The debt goes up $2 trillion under this budget.
And it is on the watch of the other party. Those are policies of the
other party that are being put in place, and they are not good
policies. They are not healthy. They are not constructive for the
American people.
The budget, as I outlined, has the largest increase in taxes in the
history of this world, especially this country, and it has an impact on
working Americans. You hear a great deal, especially from Senator
Obama, who is the presumptive nominee now of the Democratic Party after
last night, that he is going to raise taxes to pay for all his
programmatic activity, but he is only going to raise it from the
wealthy.
Well, this budget does not assume, to begin with, most of the
proposals by Senator Obama to spend money, but it does assume a tax
increase. It assumes a $1.2 trillion tax increase, and that tax
increase cannot be paid for only by wealthy Americans. If you take the
top tax rate in America, and you raise it back to the top tax rate
under the Clinton years, which would be 39.5 percent, every year you
will add $25 billion of new revenue to the Federal Government, assuming
people do not try to avoid taxes and reduce their tax liability, which
wealthy people tend to do because they get accountants to show them how
to do that. Well, that does not come anywhere near covering the
additional taxes which are proposed in this budget, the $1.2 trillion--
the $25 billion a year.
No, it is the families who are going to pay that. Forty-three million
families in America will be hit under this budget, in the year 2011,
with a tax increase of $2,300 or more. Those are working families, by
the way. A family of four making $50,000 will have a $2,300 tax
increase.
Seniors. Eighteen million seniors under this budget, in 2011, will
see a $2,200 tax increase. Small businesses--the engine for economic
activity, the engine for jobs in this country--27 million small
businesses will see a $4,100 increase. There will be 7.8 million people
brought onto the tax rolls who were taken off the tax rolls by
President Bush. These are low-income individuals who no longer have to
pay taxes as a result of the tax policies of the early 1980s. Those tax
policies, by the way, worked. They worked. Yet there is tremendous
opposition around here from the other side of the aisle to continuing
those tax policies, as this budget points out.
The capital gains--I think we have a capital gains chart in the
Chamber--the capital gains revenues during the last 4 years have jumped
dramatically--dramatically--as a result of getting a capital gains rate
which Americans feel is fair and are willing to pay. In fact, over $100
billion has been collected in the last 4 years from capital gains--$100
billion--more than was expected to be collected by the Congressional
Budget Office.
Now, why is that? Why, when we cut the capital gains rate down to 15
percent, did we get more revenue? Well, as I have said before on the
floor of the Senate, it is called human nature. If you say to somebody:
We are going to give you a fair tax rate on your capital gains income,
people will do things that generate capital gains. People do not
necessarily have to do anything to generate capital gains. If you own a
stock or you own a home or you own a small business and you feel the
capital gains rate is too high, you would not want to sell that stock,
home or small business because you would not want to pay all that money
to the Government. But if the Government sets a fair capital gains
rate--15 percent--then you say: All right, I will pay that tax in order
to turn over that stock, in order to sell my business, in order to sell
my home. I am willing to take that tax rate.
So people go out and they do things which generate economic activity.
They generate capital gains. That generates revenue to the Federal
Government. That is what has happened here. We have generated
significant amounts of revenue we did not expect because people were
willing to undertake activity which was taxable.
It has a second very positive effect, besides getting a lot of
revenue in the Federal Government. A low capital gains rate--a
reasonable capital gains rate--causes people to invest their money more
productively. They go out and they take risks. Entrepreneurs
[[Page 10155]]
take risks. Job creators take risks. Small businesses are started and
jobs are created as a result of money being invested in a way that
generates more jobs. It generates more activity, more entrepreneurship,
more jobs.
This bill assumes the capital gains rate will be doubled. This bill
assumes the rate on dividends may be more than doubled, depending on
what your bracket is. This bill is a massive tax increase on working
Americans and seniors. By the way, it is senior citizens who take the
most advantage--and that is logical--of capital gains and dividend
income. Most seniors have a fixed income. It is a dividend income. It
usually comes from a pension they are getting or they invested in while
they were in their working years or they have a home they sold, so they
have a capital gains.
So the idea in this bill, which is to end the capital gains rate as
it presently exists and raise it and to end the dividend rate as it
presently exists and doubling it, that idea is going to
disproportionately hit senior citizens. It is not going to raise the
revenue that is projected in the bill because people are going to take
tax-avoidance action.
But because of the way CBO scores things--it is static around here;
there is no dynamic scoring--they claim this is going to raise all this
revenue. It will not. But the fact is, those tax increases will slow
this economy and damage working Americans and working families, as was
shown by the prior chart. That is not fair.
Now, my colleague on the other side of the aisle will argue--and he
argues all the time--that, no, we are not going to have a tax increase,
even though the tax increase in the bill is the exact amount of money
that CBO scores the ending of the capital gains rate and its increase
and the ending of the dividend rate and its doubling--the exact amount
of money that generates by CBO scoring.
So CBO at least is presuming, and the Democratic Party in setting
forward this budget is taking advantage of, revenues that are expected
to come from a significant increase in capital gains rates, dividend
rates, and general rates. But we hear from the other side: Oh, we don't
have to do that. We don't have to do that. They try to fudge this issue
by claiming: We are going to collect this all from the tax gap.
As to the tax gap--the Senator from North Dakota probably went on for
15 minutes showing us buildings here and buildings there and subway
systems here and subway systems there. Well, do you know something. We
had testimony which totally rejects that. The Commissioner of the IRS
came in and said: You couldn't possibly collect the type of dollars
that are represented in this bill in tax increases from closing the tax
gap. You can claim it in theory, but it will not happen in practice.
This canard, so to say, has been used for years--years.
In 1987, the Senator from North Dakota said: I pound away at the need
for a share. He said: That includes the tax gap between what is owed
and what is paid. He said that in 1987.
In 1990, he said: It is both fiscally irresponsible and insulting to
the vast majority of honest taxpayers in this country if we fail to tap
this revenue from those who have not complied.
Then again, last year, he said: If we collect 15 percent of the tax
gap, it would be over $300 billion, and that alone would come close to
meeting the revenue needs under our budget.
That was last year's budget, by the way. How much did they collect
from the tax gap? Zero. How much did they collect from the tax gap in
1987, when he first made this statement? Zero. How much did they
collect in 1990, when he made the statement again? Zero. Throughout the
1990s, through the 2000s, the tax gap is not being closed.
In fact, instead of being closed, last year, they cut the funding to
the IRS, those elements of the IRS who would most logically be people
who would go out and collect extra money if it was owed. So this whole
tax gap thing is nice rhetoric, but it has no substance, and it is not
defensible on its face in light of the numbers in this bill. What is in
this bill is the largest increase in taxes in the history of this
country--$1.2 trillion.
Now, there is, in addition, the issue of the debt. The Senator from
the other side is fond of pointing to the President, saying: He has
increased the debt this much, he increased the debt this much. Yes, the
debt has gone up significantly. I do not like that. Nobody likes that.
But you cannot wash your hands of it when you produced the budget last
year that added $200 billion to the debt--well, $400 billion it was
going to add to the debt. I am sorry. I misstated. Over $400 billion
will be added to the debt for the first Democratic Congress's budget--
$400 billion. This budget presumes another $370 billion to that debt.
So this wall of debt chart--yes, the President of the United States,
because he put forward budgets that increased the debt, deserves some
significant responsibility here, but so do our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who are producing this budget. There is $2 trillion
of new debt added to the wall of debt under the Democratic budget.
You could reduce that. You could reduce that by not spending so much
money, which gets us to the next point. The spending in this bill goes
up significantly. We passed the trillion-dollar threshold--$1 trillion
of discretionary spending--in this bill.
Now, I suggested--and I agree it would maybe be a statement more of
an attempt to make a point than a substantive event, but I suggested we
set spending limits in this bill which would keep discretionary
spending under $1 trillion. That would have meant that instead of
increasing spending in this bill, as the Democratic proposal does, by
$24.5 billion next year--which, by the way, is the 1-year number that
goes up over 5 years and represents over $200 billion in new
discretionary spending--they would have only been able to increase
spending by $10 billion and then they would have stayed under the $1
trillion limit. But they couldn't even do that. I mean the desire to go
out and spend is a genetic effect; it is a genetic existence in the
Democratic position. That is why we have different parties. They
believe the Government is better when it is bigger. They believe the
Government is better when it takes your money and spends it. They
believe Government knows how to spend your money better than you do and
therefore, when they are in control--which they are and which they have
been--they significantly raise your taxes and they significantly
increase spending.
This budget isn't any different. As I said, it is back to the future.
Is this change? It is change that takes us back to where we were when
we had the last Democratic Congress. Significant increases in spending,
and the budget doesn't even account for most spending which we know is
coming down the pike which has already been signed on to by the
majority of this party on the other side of the aisle.
For example, we have pending in the wings later today or tomorrow a
supplemental that is going to add spending in the area of unemployment
insurance of $15 billion, spending in the area of veterans of $54
billion. We have a farm bill coming at us that is a $300 billion bill.
We have an AMT fix which this budget claims to pay for, but which we
know won't be paid for, of $70 billion. The numbers go up and up and up
and up, the debt goes up and up and up and up, the spending goes up and
up and up, and the taxes go up and up and up. There can be no denying
that. It is the way it is. I understand there is a difference of
opinion, but I think it ought to be admitted to by the other side.
There shouldn't be an attempt to obfuscate it by claiming we are going
to get taxes from the Oz somewhere behind the curtain. The tax revenues
are going to come out of working Americans. It shouldn't be claimed we
are going to generate a reduction in spending when we are generating an
increase in spending, and a fairly significant one. The other side of
the aisle holds up this chart and says there is no real difference
between the President's number and our number. ``Ours is a 1 percent
difference.'' But 1 percent on $3 trillion is $300 billion. I don't
know where they come from, but $300 billion is a huge amount of money--
a huge amount of money.
[[Page 10156]]
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield on the math?
Mr. GREGG. I would yield.
Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator a 1-percent difference is a 1-
percent difference, whatever the denominator is. One percent is a very
small amount of money. I think the Senator would acknowledge that 1
percent difference is--
Mr. GREGG. I reclaim my time then. The point is I don't consider $300
billion a small amount of money. Now, maybe it is a small amount of
money in North Dakota, but I do know that $300 billion would run the
State of New Hampshire for I think approximately 10 years. Maybe it
would only run the State of North Dakota for a couple of years, because
I know you have big budgets up there, but I think it is a lot of money,
$300 billion. So that is--
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield for one more moment on the
numbers? One percent of $3 trillion, I think the Senator would
acknowledge, is not $300 billion, it is $30 billion?
Mr. GREGG. Well, Madam President, I am happy to reclaim my time.
Thirty billion dollars is a lot of money in New Hampshire. It would run
the State for 10 years.
Mr. CONRAD. But would the Senator acknowledge that the $300 billion
that he referenced is simply not accurate.
Mr. GREGG. No, I wouldn't, because $300 billion is a 5-year number.
But I thank the Senator for making it clear that he agrees with the
fact that $30 billion is a lot of money. Maybe he doesn't agree that
$30 billion is a lot of money. I think $30 billion is a lot of money.
Mr. CONRAD. I would say--
Mr. GREGG. I have the time, Madam President. I have the time.
So we are talking about big dollars, real dollars and lots of new
spending. Under any scenario, we are talking a number which is going to
drive large tax increases not only next year but in the outyears for
working Americans in this country, and it is not right to do that to
them, in my humble opinion--well, in my opinion. It is not necessarily
humble. I apologize.
There is another point here that needs to be made, which is there is
a claim in this budget that they have put in some sort of enforcement
mechanisms called pay-go. They keep returning to pay-go as an
enforcement mechanism. To begin with, they have waived pay-go, adjusted
pay-go or manipulated pay-go on at least 17 different occasions for
well over $175 billion in new spending. Pay-go is only used as a
vehicle to try to increase taxes. If somebody wants to cut your taxes,
they will claim pay-go and you have to increase somebody else's taxes
to do that. But when it comes to spending around here, as we saw with
the farm bill that rolled through here, pay-go has no relevance at all.
It is adjusted by changing years. It is adjusted by moving numbers
around. It is adjusted by, as in the SCHIP bill, artificially ending a
program when you know the program is not going to end. It is scammed.
So there is no credibility to claiming pay-go is in this bill.
Furthermore, real pay-go isn't even in this bill. Real pay-go says
you match the year of the spending to the year of the cost, the year it
is going to be offset against. This bill doesn't do that. The first
year of pay-go under this bill--- you can claim you are going to offset
a new spending program in the fifth year under this bill. So you game
that system right to the end.
Then there is the alleged tax proposal in this bill--the Baucus
amendment, as it is referred to. Well, we went through this exercise
last year. The Baucus amendment was brought forward last year and the
other side of the aisle put out a lot of press releases claiming they
had extended the tax cuts within the Baucus amendment which included
things such as the childcare tax credit and the spousal marriage
penalty and I think R&D tax credit. They did a lot of press on that and
there was a great deal of fanfare after they took the vote on the
budget that claimed they were going to pass a bill which would
accomplish these tax cuts, extending them. Where is the bill? Where is
the bill? It never passed. There were no extenders passed. The whole
amendment turned out to be a fraud. So they--well, it worked so well
last year with the press release, they have done it again this year.
They have done it again this year. They have claimed they are going to
pass those extenders, which they didn't do last year, and they may do
it this year, I don't know. I haven't seen anything yet that implies to
me they are going to do it. But if they did do it, just to make darn
sure that it actually never had any serious effect, they put language
in the bill which basically creates a Rube Goldberg system where they
take back the tax deductions if a deficit occurs. Well, they know a
deficit is going to occur because they have already put in place
spending initiatives which exceed the alleged surpluses they have in
this bill. Just the veterans benefit we are going to vote on tomorrow
theoretically, and which will pass here at some point, is going to
knock out the alleged surplus. So all of these alleged tax extenders
which theoretically they are going to pass and at least they are going
to put press releases out on are not going to occur, because they put
language in this budget which says if there is a deficit, those tax
extenders are recaptured, and they end. They come to an end.
So this budget is obviously, from our point of view--and it is our
point of view. It is not their point of view. I don't argue with the
fact that they believe they have put together a great budget. I mean in
their mind, in the mind of the person who believes we should
dramatically expand the size of government, dramatically increase taxes
on the American people, this is a heck of a good budget. I don't argue
with that. But from our perspective, when we think Americans should
keep as much of their tax dollars as we can leave them with, because it
is their money and they will spend it better, and they are more
efficient using it than we are--we should keep a low capital gains
rate; we shouldn't penalize seniors who have dividend income as their
main source of income--from our perspective, this budget has the wrong
priorities because it raises the taxes on capital gains and raises the
taxes on dividends significantly.
In addition, it has the wrong priorities because it expands spending
significantly--$500 billion in new spending and entitlements. Remember:
Probably the biggest threat we face as a nation--fiscal threat--in
fact, the biggest threat after, in my opinion, the threat of Islamic
fundamentalism and the terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction
against us--is the impending economic meltdown of this country as a
result of the burden that our generation, the baby boom generation, is
putting on the next generation through the entitlement accounts. There
is $66 trillion of unfunded liability, $66 trillion--a huge number.
Nobody knows because it is hard to define what $1 trillion is. But if
you take all the taxes paid since the beginning of this Republic--I
think you are talking about something like $37 trillion--and if you
take all of the net worth of the American people--all their cars, all
their homes, all their stock--and add it together, you come up with
something like $45 trillion.
So we have a liability on our books which involves three programs--
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--that exceeds the net worth of
the Nation and exceeds the amount of taxes paid in this Nation since we
began as a nation. That is a huge problem for us. You have to start to
address it.
One of the good things the President's budget did was suggest a
couple of ways to address it. In fact, he sent up a proposal which
would take about 20 percent of this problem as it relates to Medicare,
which is the biggest part of the $66 trillion, and would have made
Medicare 20 percent less insolvent--which is a big number, by the way.
That was a big step. The proposals he sent us had no impact on the vast
majority of beneficiaries--no impact at all. He suggested that wealthy
Americans such as Warren Buffett, for example, qualify for the Part D
premium under Medicare, under the Medicare drug program, or some other
extraordinarily wealthy person, should pay a fair share--not all, but
should pay a fair share of the cost of the premium of
[[Page 10157]]
their drug program. That was a reasonable suggestion. What happened to
it? It was rejected by the other side of the aisle.
The President suggested that we use IT and disclosure of performance
at different levels that medicine integrates with the patient so people
could make more intelligent purchasing decisions, so employers and
insurers could make more intelligent decisions but, more importantly,
Medicare could. What happened to that idea? It was rejected by the
other side of the aisle.
The President suggested we should do something about the runaway cost
of malpractice, about the trial lawyers essentially running up
extraordinary costs on health care providers, especially doctors, and
that we should do something to limit that. It is a reasonable
suggestion rejected by the other side of the aisle.
How much entitlement saving is in this bill? Zero. Zero entitlement
saving is in this bill. Here we are facing probably the most
significant fiscal issue of our time and we do nothing about it in this
budget. In fact, under the present law, we as a Congress are required
by something called the Medicare drug trigger to adjust Medicare
spending to bring it down under what is known as a trigger level. It is
a technical point, but Medicare Part D premium isn't supposed to exceed
45 percent from the general fund. And we have now gotten a directive
from the trustees in the Medicare trust fund to act, and it would cost
not a large amount of money in the context of this entire budget--$1.3
trillion.
Mr. CONRAD. Billion.
Mr. GREGG. Billion, thank you. Billion. I got into my trillions. It
would cost $1.3 billion to correct this. That proposal is nowhere in
this budget; nowhere in this budget. It is hard to believe we couldn't
even do $1.3 billion when we have been directed to do it, when we
passed the law. It was our law that said we would do this if this
problem occurred. Yet the courage isn't there to do even that in the
area of entitlements, which is truly irresponsible, an act of
malfeasance by the Congress. So entitlement spending remains
unaddressed.
Interestingly enough, I heard Senator Obama on the stump a couple of
days ago--maybe it was a week ago--talking about how he was never going
to allow anything to happen to the Social Security recipient or the
Social Security trust fund. It is that type of language which
absolutely guarantees our children are going to get a bill here that
they can't afford, that our generation, the largest in the history of
the country, which will double the number of retirees, is going to
basically put a weight on our children and our children's children that
will make their lives less enjoyable than ours because they will not be
able to afford the dollars it costs to support our generation and still
be able to buy their homes, send their children to college, and buy
their cars because of the tax burden generated by the entitlement
costs.
So that irresponsibility is permeated in this budget when it does
nothing on the issue of entitlements. Speaking of Senator Obama, I am
entertained by the fact that this budget, which will have three-fourths
of its life under the next President, must assume that the next
President will not be Senator Obama because he has proposed $300
billion of new spending--$300 billion--in the first year of his
Presidency. He proposed 187 new programs. We can only score 143 of them
because the other ones were not specific enough. But if you score 143
of them, they add up to $300 billion of new spending just in the first
year.
As I said earlier, Senator Obama said he is going to pay for this by
taxing the wealthy. That is what he said. But if you look at this
budget, they have already spent that money. This budget already assumes
the wealthy are going to be taxed. The $1.2 trillion tax increase in
the budget assumes the top rate in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 period
jumps back to President Clinton's level of 39.5 percent. So the budget,
which already is projecting deficits in the $400 billion range, already
presumes inside of it, as it is presented here, a jump in the top
marginal rate, which is the rate on the richest Americans. That money
is already spent. It was spent when the other side of the aisle decided
to increase entitlement spending by $500 billion under this budget and
increase discretionary spending by close to $300 billion under this
budget. So where is he going to find the money to pay for his $300
billion of new programs? I don't know. But one thing is pretty obvious:
We are going back to the future with enthusiasm. Yes, we can raise
taxes and, yes, we can raise spending; that will become the theme not
only of this budget but future budgets should we have a Democratic
President and a Democratic Congress.
This budget really doesn't do much to address the issues the American
people need to have addressed. Those issues involve, No. 1, doing
something on the issue of entitlements; No. 2, maintaining a tax law
which creates productivity, which energizes entrepreneurship and says
to small business people, go out and create jobs; No. 3, disciplines
our fiscal house by containing discretionary spending under a trillion
dollars.
Those are not really that dramatic or that heavy a lift to undertake.
There is no reason we could not keep spending under a trillion dollars
on the discretionary side, no reason we could not have taken the small
steps, like asking wealthy people to pay a bigger part of--or any part
of--their Part D drug premium. There is no reason this budget could not
have contained within it some initiatives which would have controlled
discretionary spending and would have continued to promote the tax
policy we have seen for the last 3 years, which has generated a massive
increase in revenues for the Federal Government, especially from
capital gains.
Another course that was chosen--the course that is circular--goes
back to the way we did things in the past when we had the last
Democratic Congress. That course said you have to raise taxes because
the American people don't know how to spend their own money, so we have
to do it for them. It is a course that says the Government should
always grow, and grow fast. There is nothing in the Government that
should be reduced. It is a course that says we should add to the
Federal debt at a radical rate. It is a course that says we should
ignore real problems--the biggest problem we have, which is entitlement
spending.
I want to put in one footnote because I think it sort of encapsulates
the whole discussion about discretionary spending. The Senator from
North Dakota got up and said we had to keep the COPS Program, which was
a great program, and put cops on the street. There isn't one program
that their budget proposes that we eliminate on the discretionary side
that I found. Everything either gets increased or is maintained.
The COPS Program is uniquely appropriate to be eliminated. Why? Don't
listen to me. Listen to President Clinton. He created the COPS Program,
and he created it with this caveat: This will be a 3-year program.
That is what President Clinton said--that when we get to 100,000
police officers on the street as a result of this program, this program
will be terminated. That was the program that was proposed. Not only
did we get the 100,000 police officers on the street--because I chaired
the committee of jurisdiction at that time--we put 110,000 new police
officers on the street using Federal funds. Then, following on the
suggestion of what the original program was, and following the edict of
President Clinton, we started to phase out that program. It should have
been completely phased out. That was 8 or 9 years ago that we hit what
the number was under this Federal program. The program is still here.
It is a classic example of how programs work. Once they are in place,
the interest groups that support them demand that they stay in place
forever. Obviously, we all believe police officers do a great job. We
admire them, respect them, and they protect us. But this program
fulfilled its obligation. It did what it said it would do, and it
worked. It should have been terminated, just like President Clinton
suggested.
[[Page 10158]]
Now, the other side of the aisle, 8 to 9 years after that event, is
still claiming this program has to be kept and grown. That is the
difference between our parties. We think when somebody puts in a
program that says it will last 3 years, with certain goals, and those
goals are met and the 3 years are over, the program should be ended and
the American taxpayer should get to keep the money from ending that
program.
The other side of the aisle thinks we should continue the program
forever, grow it, and take money out of the American taxpayers' pockets
to pay for something on which we have already fulfilled the
responsibility. That is the difference. It is a fundamental difference
between our parties. They are in the majority. They have the right to
write a budget however they want it. They have done that. It is a
budget that has the world's largest tax increase, has significant
increases in spending, significant increases in entitlement spending,
crosses the trillion-dollar line on the discretionary side, does
nothing about containing entitlements, and plays games with enforcement
mechanisms relative to the budget. We would not have written this
budget. That is why we are opposed to it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am delighted that our colleague talks
about our fiscal record and theirs. He talks about circling back to the
policies when the Democrats controlled the White House. He is right
that there is a difference. The difference is that when the Democrats
last controlled the White House, we had record surpluses, and we were
paying down the debt. Under the current President, we have record
deficits and record debt.
I am delighted to talk about the record because here is their record:
In each of the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we had
achieved a budget surplus, we were paying down the debt, and the CBO
was projecting that the budget would remain in surplus for years to
come. By the time the Bush administration came into power, we had
achieved three consecutive years of surplus and were expecting more.
But, the Bush administration squandered every dime. By the time this
President is done with his responsibility, they will have run up the
debt from $5.8 trillion to over $10 trillion. That is the difference in
the record. Under the last Democratic administration, we ran surpluses
and paid down the debt. Since then, under the Bush administration, the
Nation has been beset by record deficits and record levels of debt.
That is a fact.
Now, my favorite quote of my colleague on the other side--first, let
me say I have respect for the ranking member. I have affection for him,
and we are friends. But we have a big divide when it comes to fiscal
policy. I think the policies of this administration have been reckless.
I think they have dug an enormously deep hole for this country.
I think the factual record is very clear on the differences between
our two parties. Under President Clinton, we achieved record surpluses,
and we were paying down the debt. Under President Bush, the Nation was
plunged right back into record deficits and debt. That is a fact.
But the thing I enjoy most about my colleague's speech is how similar
it was to the speech he gave last year. This is what he said last year:
It includes, at a minimum, a $736 billion tax hike on
American families and businesses over the next 5 years--the
largest in U.S. history.
The only difference is that now he is saying this budget is the
largest tax increase in the history of the world. We can now go back
and look at the factual record about what our budget did that was put
into place last year.
Did it increase taxes? Did it increase them by the largest in U.S.
history, as he asserted last year? Well, let's look. Here is the
record--not a speech but the factual record. We had Democrats
controlling the House and the Senate, and the assertion last year by
the Senator from the opposite party was that there would be the largest
increase in the history of the United States. But what happened? Was
there the largest tax increase in the history of the United States? No.
Was there a tax increase? No. Was there a tax reduction? Yes. Here it
is: Tax cuts enacted, $194 billion; offsets and closing loopholes, $7
billion; net tax reduction, $187 billion.
Now, that is the fact. So much for speeches and for hyperbole. Let's
deal with facts.
Debt: The President's budget has $83 billion more of debt than the
budget we have offered from our side. The Senator questions the Baucus
amendment, which is included in this budget, that extends key middle-
class tax cuts. That is included in the conference report. We provide
$340 billion of tax cuts in this budget.
What is he talking about, the biggest tax increase? There is no tax
increase in this budget. None. Zero. There are $340 billion of tax
reductions for the middle class in this country who deserve it.
The Senator says: Why haven't they presented a bill, because they had
the Baucus middle-class tax cut extension in last year? Why haven't we?
Because, as the Senator well knows, those tax cuts are in place until
2010. We didn't need to take action last year. We don't need to take
action this year. Those tax cuts are in place now. But in this 5-year
budget, we have provided for their extension because we know they run
out in 2010. But there is absolutely no need to have taken the action
to extend them last year or this year because they are already in
place.
Let's deal with facts. The Senator talks about Barack Obama's budget.
Barack Obama doesn't have a budget. Barack Obama is not the President
of the United States. He is asserting he has $300 billion of spending
increases. I notice he didn't say anything about the McCain budget
because while John McCain is not the President, either, he has proposed
$3 trillion--not $300 billion but $3 trillion--of additional tax cuts,
and we already can't pay our bills. We already are borrowing hundreds
of billions from China and Japan. So apparently the McCain plan is to
borrow some more money from China and Japan. That is what the party of
the other side has become, a party of borrow and spend--they've spent
$600 billion so far in Iraq with no end in sight, and they've borrowed
so much that the debt will have increased from $5.8 trillion to $10.4
trillion by the time this President is done.
Then there is one other item to which I need to respond, and that is
on the question of the pay-go. The Senator says that pay-go is
meaningless. What is it? It requires that if there is new mandatory
spending or new tax cuts, they must be offset. That is pay-go.
The Senator used to support pay-go. This is what he said in 2002:
The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially
says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you
are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of
deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a
budget-neutral event. . . . If we do not do this, if we do
not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will
have no budget discipline in this Congress and, as a result,
we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course,
impacts a lot of important issues, but especially impacts
Social Security.
The Senator was right in 2002, and, in fact, his prediction came true
because his party abandoned pay-go, drove up deficits, drove up debt,
and we are the worse for it as a nation.
If you wonder about pay-go, here is the record. We had strong pay-go
in effect between 1993 and 2000. The deficit was reduced each and every
year between 1993 and 1997 and, by 1998, we actually got into
surpluses, as I indicated before, which rose in each year through 2000.
Then our friends on the other side took charge of the White House. They
immediately weakened pay-go, and we plunged right back into deficit. We
put pay-go back into effect, and we are starting to dig out of the very
deep hole they have dug.
On the issue of pay-go being waived, pay-go has been raised 16 times;
pay-go has been waived once--once.
The Senator says pay-go is not working. I disagree. Excluding the
alternative minimum tax provisions that were put in place last year to
prevent the alternative minimum tax from
[[Page 10159]]
costing 20 million people more taxes, instead of offsetting that, the
alternative minimum tax was prevented from being expanded without
paying for it. If you leave out that one item, the Senate pay-go has a
scorecard with a positive balance of over $1.5 billion over 11 years.
Every bill sent to the President, other than the alternative minimum
tax and the stimulus, which, of course, could not be offset if it was
to have a stimulative effect--that was totally bipartisan, both those
were totally bipartisan--every bill sent to the President other than
those two has been paid for or more than paid for.
Pay-go also has a significant deterrent effect, preventing many
costly bills from being offered.
With respect to the specifics of my colleague's criticism, I will
enter into the Record every one of the items he referenced: immigration
reform, the Energy bill, mental health parity, prescription drug user-
fee amendments, minimum wage, Water Resources Development Act. Every
one of them is paid for. CHIP reauthorization, the farm bill--he just
talked about the farm bill. The farm bill, which we will vote on
sometime later today or tomorrow to overturn the President's veto, is
totally pay-go compliant. It is paid for and without tax increases.
Higher education, the reconciliation bill, the 2007 supplemental--every
one of them in terms of the bill that actually went to the President is
paid for.
When the Senator from New Hampshire calls pay-go ``swiss cheese-go,''
I call their budget approach ``easy cheese'' because they have faked
fiscal responsibility around here long enough, and we are calling them
on it because now we have their record, and their record is record
deficits, record debt, record borrowing from abroad. That is their
fiscal record. It is a fact. It can be checked. They are going to have
a hard time running away from their record as we go into an election
year.
Madam President, I see my colleague, Senator Murray, is here. How
much time does the Senator wish?
Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield her 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the chair of the
Budget Committee. He has done an amazing job putting together a budget
of which we can all be very proud.
For the last 7\1/2\ years, the current administration has really
mismanaged our economy and failed to make the kinds of investments that
keep our country strong. We all know American families have really paid
the price. We have gone from a budget surplus to a record deficit, our
infrastructure is crumbling, and our economy is now nearing a
recession, if we are not already there. So as we finalize this year's
budget, we have to ensure that we are investing in our future and
addressing our country's real priorities.
It seems that every day the news we hear gets worse about job loss,
about skyrocketing gas prices, about the number of families who risk
losing their homes in the mortgage crisis. And in the eighth and final
budget this President has sent to us, he has really sent us off on a
fiscally irresponsible path. He has given us a dishonest budget that
fails to own up to the true cost of the war, and it will require us to
borrow billions of dollars from foreign governments to meet our
expenses.
I want to give a few examples of how out of touch President Bush's
budget is.
People today are struggling to pay for heat and rent. Yet President
Bush sent us a budget that proposed to cut low-income heating
assistance and housing and neighborhood revitalization programs, such
as section 8 and CDBG, right when our constituents are fighting so hard
to pay their mortgages to make sure they stay in their homes.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating thousands of new
veterans every single year, many of them, as we know, with severe
injuries and specialized needs. But President Bush sent us a budget
that cut critical programs at the VA, including medical research and
State extended-care facilities.
More than 1 million people are going to lose their jobs this year.
What did President Bush do in his budget proposal? He cut $484 million
from critical workforce training programs.
Health care continues to be out of reach for millions of Americans
who don't have insurance or, in some cases, don't have access to
doctors or nurses. Yet the President sent us a budget that freezes
Medicare reimbursement levels for our hospitals and hospices, for our
ambulance services, long-term care facilities, and he decimated funding
for training programs for our health care professionals.
It is past time that this administration joined with the majority in
Congress and the majority of people in this country to make America's
families, the working families, our first priority.
The budget conference resolution makes responsible choices that will
help get our economy rolling again and invest in our country's real
priorities. With this budget which will be before the Senate shortly,
Democrats are investing in programs that help families meet expenses
and get ahead, things such as schools and health care and job training.
Our budget makes up for President Bush's misguided proposals to flat
line funding for education and rob students of the opportunities they
need to get ahead.
We are restoring the vital funding the President has slashed from our
Nation's job training programs to help youth and adult and dislocated
workers get the skills they need so they can succeed in our global
economy.
We are investing in health care by adding much needed funding for our
health professions, the National Health Service Corps, our community
health centers, and other programs that help to ensure Americans can
see a doctor when they are sick.
We are ensuring our communities at home are safe by funding the
homeland security grants and restoring cuts to local law enforcement
programs.
Our budget fully funds the port security grants which the President
proposed cutting in half. And it restores his dangerous proposal to cut
almost $750 million from State homeland security programs and grants.
Those are programs that help pay for security improvements, training,
and equipment--all of the items that our first responders need so they
can prepare for the worst in our communities at home.
Democrats are making critical investments in infrastructure in this
budget which will help boost spending and create jobs, while making
much needed repairs to our roads and our bridges. We are also
preventing a projected shortfall in the highway trust fund so we can
keep our commitment to States and communities and ensure that our
roads, bridges, and highways are safe and up to date.
This budget ensures we are not turning our backs on the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation in my home State or the many other States in our
nuclear complex where workers sacrificed to help make nuclear material
during the Cold War. Hanford and other sites like it are still home to
millions of gallons of nuclear waste and other dangerous material, and
the Federal Government has to live up to its promise to clean them up.
The longer we stretch it out, the more the cleanup is going to cost
over the long run. The budget that will be before us reverses the trend
of failing to invest, and it is a big step toward getting us back on
schedule.
Finally, in this budget, we are doing the right thing for our
veterans. The number of veterans is increasing every day, and the list
of needed repairs and expanded facilities in the VA system is stacking
up as well. But what does the administration send us? A budget that
proposes new fees and increased copays that will essentially discourage
millions of veterans from even accessing the VA. In his budget, the
President also underfunded VA medical care, VA medical and prosthetic
research, and he cut funding for major and minor construction by nearly
50 percent.
I have made it clear over the last several years that I believe
denying access or discouraging veterans from seeking care because of
their income is morally wrong, and I believe it will also make it
harder in the long run for us to
[[Page 10160]]
maintain a strong voluntary military. Democrats are making sure that we
keep our promise to the men and women who have served us so bravely.
I thank our chairman, Senator Conrad, for his leadership and his
tremendously hard work to get us to this point. I urge all of our
colleagues to support this budget. This budget sets priorities and
gives us critical direction as we begin the appropriations process. The
American people desperately want us to take the steps that have been
laid out in this budget. Our budget creates jobs, it rebuilds our roads
and our bridges, it cares for our veterans, it invests in education, it
helps our families meet their basic needs, and it gets us to surplus by
2012. After years of this President's unrealistic policies, Democrats
with this budget are making sure that working families are again
priority No. 1.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington, who
is an extraordinarily able member of the Budget Committee, someone upon
who I rely for much of the very hard work of the committee. She is
simply outstanding, and I thank her for her leadership and most of all
for her friendship.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Iowa, Senator Grassley, be given 30 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for providing time for me.
For 6 years, and those would be the years 2001 and 2003 through 2006,
the budget resolutions provided the necessary resources that allowed
the Finance Committee, the tax-writing committee, usually in a
bipartisan manner, to realistically address the demands of tax policy.
I am disappointed to say that this year, like last year, is different.
The people spoke in November of 2006, and for this year--and last
year--the Democrats are in the majority and in control of the
congressional budget process. As ranking Republican on the Finance
Committee, a committee I used to chair, like last year, I was not
consulted at any point by our distinguished chairman on this budget
resolution. Unfortunately, after reviewing the resolution conference
agreement, it is clear it does not realistically address the tax policy
needs the Finance Committee is very concerned about and has the
responsibility to do something about.
I am going to take a look at what the budget means to the American
taxpayers in two timeframes, from now until January 20, 2009, and then
for the period of time long term. Short term first; long term, the
period of time after the new President is sworn in starting January 20,
2009.
Let's take a look, then, at what this budget says to the American
taxpayer near term. For the hard-working American taxpayer, the news is
not all bad. I complimented the distinguished chairman for preserving
the ``unoffset'' AMT patch for this year in the budget. He had to
concede a new point of order to the House, but my guess is there will
be 60 votes to waive it when the AMT patch is brought up. The problem
that 26 million families face is uncertainty of the action on the AMT
patch this very year. In other words, right now.
I have a chart here I wish to put up. It is the estimated tax
voucher, a form that people fill out for making quarterly payments.
Many of the 26 million families facing the AMT technically should be
adjusting their withholding upward and filing the 1040-ES form with a
check for a portion of the AMT they already owe because Congress hasn't
acted yet to prevent the AMT from expanding to almost 25 million more
Americans, which I don't think will happen, because I think we will
take care of it in time, but who knows. But right now, those filing
quarterly should have made this payment, filled this form out, on April
15. That is when the first quarter's estimated tax is due, and that is
what the tax law says right now.
This is all a problem because the House Democratic leadership won't
send us an ``unoffset'' AMT patch. Now, let's make it clear what the
Constitution says, so people don't think I am only blaming the House of
Representatives. The Constitution says tax laws must start in the House
of Representatives. So why then won't the House Democratic leadership
send us an ``unoffset'' AMT patch bill so we can get it to the
President? Here is the problem. The House Blue Dog Democrats will not
support an ``unoffset'' AMT patch bill.
Now, why wouldn't the Blue Dogs do that? And I am not accusing them,
I am stating what their position is. The answer is the Blue Dogs are a
growing presence in the House of Representatives. Most of the seats
that shifted from the Republican column to the Democratic column in the
2006 election are occupied by Blue Dogs.
The Democratic-leaning Washington punditry and the Democratic
leadership have gloated recently about the trifecta that has happened
because of the House special congressional elections this year. By
trifecta, I am referring to the three House races that were switched
from Republicans to Democrats this year, not something this Republican
is proud about. All three of those Members have joined or intend to
join the Blue Dog coalition in the other body.
Lord knows we have heard a lot of gloating from the other side about
these three new so-called conservative Democrats. We have also heard
from a lot of Republicans crying in their favorite beverage about this
outcome.
The Blue Dogs have had a heavy hand in this budget and are the
leading obstacle to getting the ``unoffset'' AMT patch bill done and to
the Senate so we can send it to the House. So if the Blue Dogs are
representing themselves as strict agents of fiscal responsibility, it
is a fair question for every one of us to ask about their definition of
fiscal responsibility.
Let's take a look at it. I have another chart here. This chart
contains a depiction of the most famous Blue Dog. Here he is, the most
famous Blue Dog, Huckleberry Hound, showing us the definition of fiscal
responsibility from his Blue Dog perspective. Now, here we have
Huckleberry Hound barking ``fiscal responsibility.'' American taxpayers
should beware. Huckleberry Hound's bite happens to be higher taxes.
With respect to spending cuts, all we get is a whimper. No spending
cuts.
Maybe I am being too tough on Huckleberry Hound and his Blue Dog
friends, but I have yet to see the empowered Blue Dogs propose spending
cuts for deficit reduction. All I have seen is higher and higher taxes.
Like their liberal brethren, Blue Dog Democrats only look to the
American taxpayers to fund new spending. We are seeing it once again on
the war supplemental bill. Why couldn't they find a spending cut here
or there to pay for the popular veterans' benefit package? Why always
go to tax increases?
The reason I point this out is this group of House Members is holding
up our ability to pass an AMT patch bill in a form that can pass the
Senate and in a form that can be signed by the President. The Blue
Dogs' bark of fiscal responsibility is stalling relief for 26 million
AMT families. The Blue Dogs insist on getting their bite of $62 billion
in new taxes as a condition to sparing these 26 million families from
the AMT.
I agree with the Blue Dogs on the importance of fiscal
responsibility. And as I have stepped up to the plate over the years
with plenty of revenue raisers, well, if you have any questions, ask
the people downtown in what we call the K Street crowd who think of
defending all these tax loopholes we are trying to close. But the Blue
Dogs whimper when it comes to spending cuts. They only look at the
taxpayers for fiscal responsibility. This obsession with raising taxes,
most pointedly advanced by Blue Dogs, is a theme that runs through this
budget.
I am going to turn now to the short-term tax legislative agenda and
examine how the budget squares with what we need to do.
[[Page 10161]]
As a farmer, I would like to think we country folks can teach city
folks a lesson or two. The first chart I am going to put up here
involves the method a lot of us farmers use to get our water. You will
see a well in this chart. You can see it as a long well. There is a
little bit of water way down there at the bottom of the well, but most
of the well is dry.
Now, what we are told by those who drew up the budget is that the
tax-writing committees will somehow plain find the money. Well, find
the money. You have to have some sort of consensus to do that, because
in the Senate, to get anything done, you have to have some
bipartisanship. We will find the money, they say, to pay for this time-
sensitive tax business we have to deal with. Now, these are not just
abstract things; these are pending matters. They are pieces of
legislation on both sides that we say we want to get done before this
session ends.
The offset well here shows about $58 billion that is known, that is
identified, and that is scored revenue raisers that the Senate
Democratic caucus supports. I used this chart several months ago trying
to make similar points. I have updated it to assume that the farm bill
will become law, and I think that is going to happen within 48 hours.
As a rule of thumb, the Finance Committee tax staff, in a bipartisan
way, has developed about $1 billion per month in new offsets. That
figure of $1 billion per month is in line with our historical average,
the success we have had of gleaning money by closing loopholes. How
reliable is that average, and can we count on it?
As a farmer, I know something about the predictability of rainwater.
You hope you will get rain and that will give you a decent level of
well water. As a former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance
Committee, I know something about revenue raisers. I have been there
and done that. When I was chairman, I aggressively led efforts to
identify and enacted sensible revenue raisers aimed at closing the tax
gap and shutting down tax shelters. And as ranking member, I continue
to look for ways to shut off unintended tax benefits. So I consider
myself to be a credible authority on what is realistic when it comes to
revenue raisers.
From 2001 through 2006, Congress enacted over 100 offsets, with
combined revenue scores of $1.7 billion over 1 year, $51\1/2\ billion
over 5 years, and $157.9 billion over 10 years. So if you look at
recent history, we can realistically figure the tax staff will find
about $1 billion a month. Let taxpayers who are trying to avoid
honestly paying taxes beware of that.
Right now, however, all we can find that is specified, that is
drafted and is scored, is that $58 billion. The revenue-raising well
shows about $58 billion in available, defined, and scored offsets.
Defenders of the resolution before the Senate will say a virtual
cornucopia of revenue raisers is there from the tax gap and from
shutting down offshore tax scams. I take a backseat to no one on
reducing the tax gap or shutting down offshore tax shelters. I have
scars to show from my efforts over the years. But the defined as well
as the scored tax gap proposals are included.
We have that here already.
Likewise, we have a proposal targeted at tax haven countries and
other off-shore activities on this chart. The well has, then, about $58
billion of offset water. This budget anticipates Congress will be
thirsty for this limited group of offsets. On the thirst or demand
side, you will see the bucket will be busy bringing up that water. On
the demand side, I have talked about next year's AMT patch--there is
$74 billion for the patch for next year. There is $16 billion for tax
provisions that ran out at the start of this year. That estimate, by
the way, is probably low. Then there is $29 billion for next year's
extenders, and there is $15 billion for the energy tax package we want
to pass.
If you add up those things--and we have to add the $5 billion we have
there for the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, if
we get to it--and I hope we get to it. So the pending, the time-
sensitive tax business totals what? It is $139 billion that we have to
bring up in that bucket.
You see $59 billion of real money is available. That is quite a
difference. We are short about $80 billion. I have not even included
the demands from the myriad of reserve funds that are mentioned in this
resolution. Since we know from almost a decade of fiscal history that
the Democratic leadership cannot propose spending cuts, we know the new
reserve funding spending will be paid for with tax increases. It has
been shown to be the case since the Democrats took power in January
2007.
As I said earlier, the Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives are
leading proponents of this tax and this spending practice. You can see
it doesn't add up. The budget plan for tax legislative business is very
much out of balance. It is out of balance by at least $80 billion. Even
if the Senate were to adopt some of the new tax hikes that the House
has come up with, we would be substantially still out of balance.
I might add I have included in the Senate offset accounting proposals
the House has rejected. So I think on this chart is a fairly
conservative estimate.
What is going to happen? How do we then bridge that $80 billion gap?
Either the tax relief is not going to happen or we will add that to the
deficit. That is a frightening proposition. I had hoped that the
shortfall would be confined to the short term, but that is not the
case. Over the long term--and I said I had a short-term view and a
long-term view of this budget resolution. So what does it look like
after January 20, 2009? It gets much worse.
Let's take a look at the budget's assumptions about revenues over
that long term. Over the 5-year budget window going out to the year
2012, keeping existing policy in place will have a revenue effect of
over $1.2 trillion. This includes AMT relief, extension of bipartisan
2001 and 2003 tax relief, and extending other broadly supported
expiring provisions.
In the aggregate, this budget appears to provide $340 billion in new
resources for extending these policies over the 5-year window. Let's
look further, and you will find a complicated obstacle course to making
any of this tax relief happen. To me, the conditional tax relief
language is almost bait and switch. Senator Gregg has described in
great detail how this mechanism would work. To me, it is as convoluted
as a Rube Goldberg type of invention. So I have another chart.
The chart shows a Rube Goldberg potato peeler invention. If you want
to peel potatoes, I would tell Rube Goldberg to use a simple potato
peeler. If you really mean to deliver tax relief, I would tell the
majority, the Democratic majority, write it into the resolution. Make
it very clear. Don't use a Rube Goldberg mechanism.
Suffice it to say, the supposed $340 billion in tax relief targeted
to 2011 and beyond assumes it will not be used for future spending.
Does anybody really believe this new majority will not spend future tax
relief if given the chance? If your answer is yes, then I have a few
bridges in Iowa that I will sell you.
Under this budget, $1.3 trillion in expiring entitlement spending is
assumed to continue. It is right in the CBO outlook. So, Mr. and Mrs.
Taxpayers, that is right, your taxes will go up by almost $1.2 trillion
unless Congress raises taxes to offset the revenue loss.
When it comes to expiring entitlement spending, it is quite a
different story. There is no requirement in this resolution for
Congress to do any heavy lifting. This emphasis upon higher taxes and
higher spending is reinforced by the pay-as-you-go rules, or we say
pay-go around here. That is this budget's notion of fiscal
responsibility--unrestrained spending is good, higher taxes are good.
Over the 5 years of this budget resolution, it assumes a dramatic tax
increase--at least $1.2 trillion. In 2011 the bipartisan tax relief
plan will expire. Some folks will call these provisions the Bush tax
cuts. I suppose that term, ``Bush tax cuts,'' arises from polling by
campaign outfits on the other side. It is true President Bush signed
both bills, but the bipartisan compromises occurred in the Senate
Finance Committee. In 2011 President Bush will have been gone from
office for a couple
[[Page 10162]]
of years. You can call this package of tax relief for virtually every
American the Bush tax cuts, but for the taxpayers, if Congress does not
intervene, it will be a tax increase and it will be the biggest tax
increase in the history of the country and it is all going to happen
without a vote of the Congress.
So I would like to run through a couple of examples. The first would
be a family of four. There is the husband, his wife, and their two
children. This family makes $50,000 in income. That is right about the
national median household income today. For example, the Census Bureau
stated that for 2006 the national median household income was $48,200.
Under the Democratic leadership's budget this family will face a tax
increase of $2,300 per year. That is a loss in their paycheck of about
$200 per month. It is a hit on their yearly budget of $2,300. Where I
come from, that is real money.
I will give another example, this one a single mom, two children. She
earns $30,000 a year. In 2011, under this budget, she and her family
run straight into a brick wall--that is a brick wall of $1,100-per-year
taxes. That is $100 a month out of the family's budget.
Some on the other side will say they only excluded top-rate taxpayers
or other high-income folks from tax relief. I am going to tell you
don't believe it. We have tax bills of the previous several decades to
prove it, that you don't tax just the wealthy when you raise taxes. The
facts are otherwise. Low-income folks, including millions of seniors,
pay no tax on their dividends or their capital gains income. If this
budget stands, even with the Baucus amendment, millions of these low-
income taxpayers, especially seniors, will pay a 10-percent rate on
capital gains and could pay as high as a 15-percent rate on dividends.
Nationally, over 24 million families and individuals reported
dividend income. Let's say that again--24 million Americans reported
dividend income--because you think it is just a few hundred thousand of
very wealthy people--24 million families. In Iowa, for instance, we
have 299,000 families and individuals claiming dividend income on their
income tax returns. There are not 299,000 millionaire families and
individuals in Iowa. Nationally, we are talking about over 9 million
families and individuals reporting capital gains income. In Iowa we are
talking about 127,000 families and individuals.
There are many marginal rates other than the top rate that would rise
if this budget stands, even with the amendment of Senator Baucus. The
25-percent rate--which for 2007 starts at $31,850 for singles and
$63,700 for married couples--would rise by 3 percent, to 28 percent.
The 28-percent rate would go up 3 percentage points to 31 percent. The
33-percent rate would go up 3 percentage points to 36 percent. The top
rate would go up from its current 35 percent level to 39.6 percent.
To sum up, even with the Baucus amendment added to this budget, there
would be marginal rate increases on millions of taxpayers, and not just
millionaires. Those marginal rate increases would reach taxpayers with
taxable incomes as low as $31,850 for singles and as low as $63,700 for
married couples.
What I just described is accurate only if the Democratic leadership
intends to follow the letter and the spirit of the Baucus amendment. If
you look at last year's track record, the House neutered the effect of
the amendment in the conference committee. They created a Rube Goldberg
type of mechanism to impede the amendment.
As I pointed out a few minutes ago, that mechanism is right back
again. Of course, after the budget conference report was agreed to, all
talk and action around the amendment then somehow ceased.
I wouldn't put much stock on the followthrough on the Baucus
amendment. The distinguished chairman and friend of mine points out
that since last year's budget, we passed tax relief of $50 billion for
last year's AMT patch. He will also point to the stimulus package
passed earlier this year. The senior Senator from North Dakota is
correct that those tax relief packages did pass. He used the assertion
to counter the assertion on our side that there is a $1.2 trillion tax
increase in the budget.
The distinguished chairman omits a critical fact in his assertion,
and that is the ``unoffset'' AMT patch passed only because Senate
Republicans and the administration insisted that they would not use the
AMT problem as a money machine for current and future spending. If the
Democratic caucus had prevailed, the AMT patch would have been offset.
Likewise, on the stimulus bill, there was bipartisan consensus that
economic stimulus should not be a tax increase.
When you step back from the differences across the aisle on this
budget, you probably will not be surprised to find some differences
among Presidential candidates. Generally, the candidates on the other
side have proposed to take heavily from the taxpayers under the guise
of fiscal responsibility. This is true when they are talking about
ending the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003. It is true
when they are talking about the same loophole closers for a myriad
number of expansions of existing entitlements and creating new ones.
Nowhere is there discussion of reining in spending.
So the tax side of the Federal ledger is the only route to fiscal
responsibility from the perspective of Presidential candidates on the
other side of the aisle.
I wanted to give you one telling example. One Democratic candidate
has proposed to repeal the bipartisan tax relief plans for taxpayers
earning above $250,000. This proposal raises $226 billion over 5 years
and 10 years. A key fact is that the source of that revenue peters out
over the next few years because under current tax law, the tax relief
sunsets at the end of 2010.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator through the Chair that we would be
happy to accede to the request if the Senator could say something nice
about the chairman of the committee.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Besides the work of Senator Harkin, we have an
outstanding farm bill because of the hard work of the Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. What a kind and gracious thing to say. We would be happy
to agree to the request. The Senator would like 4 additional minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I think that is it.
Mr. CONRAD. Why don't we give the Senator 5. You can give back any
time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Sure.
Mr. CONRAD. May I interrupt the Senator and ask unanimous consent
when the Senator has concluded, we go to Senator Wyden?
How much time would the Senator speak?
Mr. WYDEN. I think it would range up to 10 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Are we confident that 10 is sufficient?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Then I ask unanimous consent to go to Senator Wyden for
10 minutes after Senator Grassley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, I was talking about Presidential candidates and
what their budget plans might do.
Like the Democratic leadership's budget, the candidates on the other
side oversubscribe the revenue sources from proposals that are popular
with the Democratic base. The deficiency can only be made up in three
ways: One, other undefined sources of revenue would need to be tapped.
The taxpayers should rightly be worried about that avenue. Two, the
proposed spending plan would need to be abandoned or curtailed. There
is not much history on the Democratic side of this avenue being taken.
Three, add to the deficit for the cost of the new programs.
Unfortunately, this avenue has been taken too many times.
We will hear a lot of criticism of the Republican candidate, Senator
McCain, from those on the other side. They will argue, like the
President's budget, a continuation of current-law levels of taxation
somehow costs the Federal Government too much revenue, just like all
the money every worker makes belongs to the Government and we let
[[Page 10163]]
the taxpayers keep a little bit of it. They will argue that the
spending increases they propose are more important than the restrained
levels of the President's budget, and they will argue that despite the
record tax hikes in their budget, entitlement reform is a matter for
another day. In fact, Senator McCain's plan intends to keep the revenue
take where it is as a share of the economy. You see revenue averages of
about 18.3 percent of the economy. That is 18.3 of the GDP.
The state of the economy affects revenues more than anything else.
There are dips when we have been in recession and peaks when growth is
high. Our side cares about keeping the revenue line at a reasonable
level, about 18 to 19 percent.
We do not see the merits of an imperative behind a growing role for
Government in the economy. The other side disagrees. That is their
philosophy, they are entitled to it. I think they are wrong.
They impliedly or explicitly reject our premise that the size of
Government needs to be kept in check. That view has been best expressed
in an editorial of October 22, 2007, in the New York Times. The lead
paragraph says it best:
President Bush considers himself a champion tax cutter, but
all the leading Republican presidential candidates are eager
to outdo him. Their zeal is misguided. This country's meager
tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the
Government ill equipped to face the challenges from
globalization.
But the bottom line is the New York Times directly states the view
behind this budget and the position of the Democratic candidates. From
this perspective, the historical level of taxation is not somehow
appropriate as a measure for the next decade.
The New York Times implies that the Federal Government must grow as a
percentage of our economy by at least 5 to 8 points. That is more than
ever in the history of the country. If we were to follow the path
suggested by the Times, the Government's share of our economy would
grow by one-third. One-third. One-third is a great big increase in
Government. The Democratic leadership budget takes some big steps on
that path. So do the campaign proposals of the Democratic candidates.
They go in the same direction.
Our Republican conference takes a different view. America is a
leading market economy. American prosperity and economic strength, in
our view, is derived from a vigorous private sector that affords all
Americans the opportunity to work hard, to save, and to invest more of
their money.
A growing economy is the best policy objective. It makes fiscal sense
as well. Fiscal history shows that despite criticism to the contrary,
the bipartisan tax relief plan drove revenues back up after the
economic shocks we suffered earlier this decade. I am referring to the
stock market bubble, corporate scandals, and the 9/11 terror attacks.
Revenues bounced back when the economy bounced back. The revenue
outperformed CBO's projections by a significant extent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PRYOR). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Oregon is to be recognized for 10 minutes.
____________________
SENATOR KENNEDY
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the television news folks spent much of
yesterday looking at brain scans and pretty much counting out our
friend Ted Kennedy. But I will tell you today, I think the TV crowd is
missing a much bigger story; that is, Ted is the most determined person
I have met, and anybody who counts Ted Kennedy out needs to have their
head examined.
Now, earlier today, Senator Kennedy's son, Ted junior, gave me a
call. Ted junior is a wonderful guy. We talked about all of the
instances where his family has tackled illness, defeated cancer. Ted
junior told me earlier today that his dad is mobilizing, he is building
a battle plan against cancer, he is talking to the experts, he is
digging out the facts the way we know Ted Kennedy does unlike anybody
else here in the Senate. And certainly Senator Kennedy is not
sugarcoating anything.
But I think it is also important to note that he sure is looking
ahead. Senator Kennedy is especially looking forward to the passion of
his life in public service, fixing health care and universal health
coverage, coverage for all of our people.
Ted has always been America's go-to guy on health care. He has always
been our conscience, our leader on the premier domestic issue of our
time. Ted is always telling me--he is telling a lot of the Senators--
that this time Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate can get it
done, that after 60 years of bickering and quarreling partisanship, at
this time, it can get done. Ted says there is no reason the richest and
strongest country on Earth cannot figure this out and cannot figure out
a way to get good health care to all of our people. I especially like
the way Ted points out that we have thousands and thousands of
wonderful doctors and hospitals and health care providers. They are
ready and waiting for the political leadership to step up and tackle
this issue.
Now, nobody has stepped up on health care the way Ted Kennedy has.
Nobody has put the effort into looking ahead and what is it going to
take to fix the system, to build the coalitions--business, labor,
seniors, doctors, health care providers--all the people who are going
to be necessary to fix health care.
We should be very grateful that Ted Kennedy has always stepped up on
fixing American health care, particularly the challenge of our time,
universal coverage. And I for one am very glad this afternoon that
Senator Kennedy is looking forward to being back at his post, as we go
forward, Democrats and Republicans, and tackle this issue, this issue
so important to our people and our families. That is what Senator
Kennedy and his public service is all about. I want to report this
afternoon, he is sure looking ahead to the big challenges we face. And
we want him back here with us as soon as he can.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my understanding is we are in morning
business, talking about the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Senators are allowed
to speak for up to 10 minutes.
____________________
THE BUDGET
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last year we were obligated to accept the
assurances from the majority that under this new regime, pay-go would
be respected, spending would be curbed, the entitlement crisis would be
addressed, and the debt would be attacked. Undoubtedly, that was an
ambitious agenda. Obviously, it didn't happen. We now have results, not
predictions. When all was said and done last year, there was an $83
billion increase in discretionary spending. There was $143 billion in
pay-go violations. Pay-go violations are provisions we put in the
budget that help assure we get moving toward deficit reduction and
eventually balancing the budget and reducing debt. We didn't close the
tax gap. We added to the national debt. The budget was used to add
spending, not reduce it.
Previous to that year, we had always had strong budget provisions
that forced budget discipline that actually held down spending. We did
nothing for entitlement reform, and we assumed tax increases.
When we began consideration of the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, I
hoped everyone was aware of what was promised last year and what
transpired. I hope they will use that knowledge with what we see today
to understand that what we have now, with two budgets written, soon to
be approved, is a pattern, a distinct pattern. That pattern is fiscally
damaging to this country. The Democratic budget assumes a tax
[[Page 10164]]
hike of at least $1.2 trillion which will hit 116 million Americans.
This is the second year in a row that the majority party is expecting
the American public to surrender more of their income to fund big
government.
The pay-for assumed in this budget is simply fantasy. The tax gap,
for instance, instead of being closed, was actually expanded last year.
Middle-class tax relief was not passed last year either. This budget
pushes annual spending over the $1 trillion mark for the first time
ever. It increases spending over the President's budget by at least
$210 billion over 5 years. That is without including the $79 billion we
are considering on the floor this week in the supplemental. We have
certainly lost control of our budget.
I want to take a moment and comment that our Budget Committee
chairman must be having a little fun with us with his chart showing the
difference between his budget and the President's budget. His claim
that there is little difference between the two lines on his chart must
be intended to be humorous, when the Y axis is over a trillion dollars.
If he is teasing us, I appreciate his humor; if he is serious, I fear
for us.
Another huge problem in this budget is that the biggest fiscal danger
in our future, the looming entitlement crisis, is made worse. Actually,
``danger'' isn't the word. It is not a threat. It is not a danger; it
is reality. It is a fact. We need to deal with it. For a second year in
a row, nothing is done to address the $66 trillion entitlement crisis
now on our doorstep. The budget allows entitlement spending to grow by
at least $500 billion over 5 years. This is a huge avalanche of debt
waiting to bury our future. But we do nothing. We are not even doing
something as productive as fiddling. We are just talking year after
year and perhaps wishing it will go away. Instead of reducing the debt
as they promised, the majority allows gross debt to climb by $2
trillion by 2013. That debt will have to be paid back by future
generations. In fact, every American child will owe an additional
$27,000 or more under this budget.
We didn't see many amendments that tried to reduce the debt. I
offered one to try to do that, where we looked at those programs that
were rated as ineffective. I asked the Members of this body to vote
with me to not have a pay increase to these ineffective programs. I
thought at least we will let them maintain their funding levels for the
previous year. We won't give them an increase, just as we would do with
a poorly performing employee. We were not able to get the votes we
needed to even put that simple policy in effect. We face a huge
challenge, and we need to have a budget that provides the enforcement
mechanisms that bring some fiscal sanity back to the process.
There is so much that is disappointing in this resolution that I hate
to call attention to some specific points for fear of ignoring all
others. But let me point out that an amendment I added in markup, which
called for disclosures on debt, was removed. This shows the American
public that there are things being done to their paychecks in this bill
that the majority party doesn't want them to know. Now that our economy
is trending in the wrong direction and when we need the benefits of a
reasonable and pro-growth tax policy, we are going to depress our
economic growth by adding to the debt and increasing taxes.
When we consider these tax increases, let's remember, last year we
were assured we would see tax relief. The first vote we were presented
on the budget last year was to budget for an alleged middle-class tax
cut. This never materialized. I believe Congress and especially the
Budget Committee should be committed to rigid budget discipline, not
politically expedient gamesmanship. I urge a return to a tighter and
more credible budget document. I plan to offer several amendments to
shore up the fiscal discipline we are seeing erode.
Given that this budget assumes raised taxes, increased spending,
increases in the debt, failure to address the entitlement crisis, and
continuing the ongoing erosion of fiscal discipline in the Government,
I feel compelled to vote against it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUNNING. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in recent polling, close to 80 percent of
the American public have told pollsters the Nation is on the wrong
track. We have enormous problems to solve. The American people know it,
and we should be working together to solve those problems. But this
budget, written behind closed doors and in secret by a partisan group
of Senators, will do nothing to close the gulf that is keeping us from
the people's business. Maybe that is by design.
Majority Leader Reid recently explained that Senator Clinton
recommended to him that the Democrats should have a Senate ``war
room.'' The war room is up and running today, churning out falsehoods,
such as claims that Republicans have staged 71 filibusters--a claim now
disputed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Who are the
Democrats at war with?
Just as my good friend, General Petraeus, began to make progress
reversing the insurgency in Iraq, the leadership of the Senate decided
to wage a different kind of war--a war on Americans who do not share
their vision of the future. The vision Democrats would promote, to the
exclusion of all others, is laid out in this budget document before us.
It begins with more tax enforcement. Everybody should abide by the law
and pay the taxes they owe. And I support our new IRS Commissioner. But
the notion that we can save anywhere near the amount proposed by
Senator Conrad is nonsense, and he should know it.
The only way to collect that revenue would be to toss out the
procedural rights American taxpayers now enjoy. These rights are
critical because they assure fair and evenhanded enforcement by the
IRS. The Government will lose far more revenue than Senator Conrad
proposes to save if the public loses confidence in the fairness of our
tax system.
His own colleagues in the House are not serious about this either. If
they were, the House would not have voted on party lines to stop audits
of a handful of wealthy Americans under audit by the IRS who claim to
be Virgin Islands residents. What is the IRS to make of this mixed
message?
The next part of the Democratic vision is predictable: more taxes. In
order to achieve balance, the Democrats' budget assumes $1.2 trillion
in additional revenue compared to today's baseline. Has anybody asked
the 80 percent who think we are on the wrong track whether they would
raise taxes on 116 million Americans?
At least 43 million American families will pay $2,300 more per year
in Federal tax for the spending in this budget proposal.
Finally, and most significantly, the Democrats' plan on entitlement
reform is to stay the course. Senator Domenici, the former chairman of
the Budget Committee, told Budget conferees yesterday that he fears for
our future and the future of our children and our grandchildren. Having
35 grandchildren, I share his concerns.
As any ship's captain knows, when you are heading for the rocks, it
is time to change course. Staying the course is the wrong policy and
the wrong message, and I am disappointed my colleagues have been
unwilling to work with me and with the President to turn the ship of
state in the right direction with this budget document.
Please--the American people are watching--let's do what is right and
reject this partisan document and write a budget we can all be proud
of.
I yield back.
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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page 10165]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, while we have been in caucus discussing
how the business of the Senate will be concluded over the next several
days, I note that a number of my colleagues have spoken to once again
assert and claim that there is a tax increase in the budget conference
report before us. That is a fiction. Our friends on the other side have
a very consistent speech, and they give it regardless of what is
actually in the legislation. I can say that because we have a record
now of their giving this same speech, because they gave the exact same
speech last year, almost word for word.
Last year, as shown on this chart, this was the description of the
ranking member of the Budget Committee with respect to the conference
report. He said then:
It includes, at a minimum, a $736 billion tax hike on
American families and businesses over the next five years--
the largest in U.S. history.
Now we are able to check the record and able to see what, in fact,
has happened. Did the Democratic Congress pass the largest tax increase
in history in the last year? No. Did we pass any tax increase? No. Here
is what we did do: We passed $194 billion of tax reduction. That is the
record. People do not have to know what specific legislation has
occurred here to know what I am saying is true. All they have to do is
go to their mailbox. Because tens of millions of Americans are getting
a check from the U.S. Treasury, courtesy of the Congress controlled by
Democrats and, in fairness, a law signed by the President--one
negotiated in a completely bipartisan way to provide stimulus to the
economy.
There were $7 billion of loophole closers enacted during the same
period. So the net effect of the two is $187 billion of tax reduction.
That is our record.
Now they are saying: Well, they have this big tax increase in this
package. No, we do not. That is their assumption. It is not ours. What
is provided for in this package is $340 billion of tax reduction. The
Baucus amendment, passed here--it is included in the conference
report--extends all the middle-class tax cuts and reforms the estate
tax. Mr. President, $340 billion of tax reduction.
Now, our colleagues say: Well, they had that in last year's budget
and did not pass a law to implement it. That is true. You do not need
to implement it until the tax reductions that are in place expire. They
do not expire until 2010. So, yes, we have provided for them in the 5-
year budget. That is to be responsible to show we can balance even with
those tax cuts extended. But you do not need to pass the law now
because those tax cuts are in effect until 2010.
I wanted to say that to set the record straight. I know Senator Kyl
is here waiting to speak, so I will stop at this time so he has a
chance to make his remarks.
I say to Senator Kyl, for the good of the order, could you give us a
rough idea how long you might speak?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to Senator Conrad, I would say no more
than 10 to 15 minutes. I will say 15, but probably I will not take that
much time.
Mr. CONRAD. Would it be appropriate to have a unanimous consent
agreement that the Senator have 15 minutes--or 20, and then he can
yield back time if he wishes.
Mr. KYL. No. Mr. President, I am happy to ask unanimous consent to
speak for 15 minutes, and then whatever time Senator Conrad would urge
after that, subject to Senator Gregg's intercession as well.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I say, then we have a couple of other Senators on
our side who wish to say something and, hopefully, we will then be done
on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, let me engage in a little bit more of the sparring
between the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the
distinguished ranking member, both of whom have had a good debate here.
But I would like to add to that debate.
There is a lot of discussion here that must cause Americans watching
this to wonder what on Earth is going on here when we pass a budget and
that budget assumes various things, and then there are charges back and
forth that you have passed a tax cut, you have not passed a tax cut,
you have passed a tax increase, you have not, and so on.
Let me see if I can clarify that with what are, in fact, the real
assumptions in the budget and what the Senate has and has not done.
The ranking member of the Budget Committee is correct that the budget
that has passed the Senate already, and that the Senate is about to
enact again, in fact, assumes tax increases which will amount to the
largest tax increase in the history of the world--$1.2 trillion. Those
are assumed in this budget.
Now, the chairman of the committee correctly says: Well, we have not
actually passed those tax cuts. That, of course, is true. The budget is
not a law, a bill that is sent to the President for his signature so he
can sign it and then it becomes law. That is not what a budget is. The
budget is the document we use to frame our deliberations in the
Congress for this coming year. We are supposed to stick to it. It sets
an upper limit on spending. It sets the revenues that we assume will
come in, and part of the revenue is based on taxes.
So what this budget does is to say we assume we are going to have
taxes of $1.2 trillion more than we have today. That is what this
budget assumes, and that is the largest tax increase in the history of
the world.
Now, the chairman responded first by saying: Well, actually we have
also included something else in this budget so you cannot say it is
necessarily the biggest tax increase in the history of the world
because we passed what is called the Baucus amendment, and the Baucus
amendment is supposed to provide an extension of certain current tax
rates that would otherwise expire in the year 2010, and if we do that,
then we will not actually have that tax increase.
The answer is, that is true, were we to do that, that tax increase
would not occur--at least it would not occur to that amount.
Well, we did the same thing last year. We had the Baucus amendment
last year. But Congress never passed any tax relief based on the Baucus
amendment. So while the Baucus amendment was in the budget, it was
never implemented. The truth is, it is not going to be implemented this
year either. I think everyone will acknowledge that.
So it is no answer to say the tax increases that are assumed in the
budget are actually wiped off because the Baucus amendment is also a
part of the amendment. The Baucus amendment is not going to be
implemented this year, just as it wasn't implemented last year.
The third response the chairman of the Budget Committee made was:
Well, that is true, but we actually don't have to pass the Baucus
amendment until these current tax rates expire because they currently
exist until the end of 2010. So we can still say we passed a tax cut,
even though we haven't enacted anything, because we are going to assume
existing law continues until the end of 2010.
Well, that is an odd way to argue that you have actually cut taxes.
You haven't cut any taxes at all. You have done nothing but allow
current rates to continue for next year and the year 2010. It is a good
thing those rates are continuing; we wouldn't want them to increase.
They are the Bush tax cuts that many Democrats have been very critical
of. But here now Democrats are bragging about keeping them in effect
for another 2 years. Well, I am glad. I am happy they are being kept in
effect for another 2 years. I am worried about what is going to happen
after that. The problem is this budget assumes they are going away.
That is the $1.2 trillion we are speaking of.
Now, what happens to average Americans if this tax cut fails to
materialize and, in fact, the tax increase actually occurs? Well, this
budget conference agreement we will be voting on assumes that single
people earning as little as $31,000 a year, couples making
[[Page 10166]]
$63,000, will see their taxes go up. That is because it assumes the 25-
percent bracket which kicks in around $32,000 next year for single
filers, $63,000 for married couples, will go to 28 percent. Well, is
this 3 percentage points a lot? Is that a big deal? Well, it is a
marginal tax rate increase of 12 percent. When you add percentage
points onto 25 and go to 28, that is a 12-percent increase. That means
people in the 25-percent bracket--and that is people earning as little
as $32,000 a year--will give the Federal Government 12 percent more of
every dollar they earn over $32,000 more than they do today.
What does that mean? Well, let's look at some high school teachers in
Phoenix and Tucson, AZ, my home State. In Phoenix, they make between
$42,000 and $63,000 on average. So they would see a significant tax
increase. How big? Well, according to calculations run by the Budget
Committee, the average tax increase for this middle-income family will
be more than $2,000. That may not be much to some, but it is a lot of
money to the average school teacher in Phoenix. The average school
teacher in Tucson makes between $38,000 and $56,000, on average. Most
people think of that as middle class, not wealthy. But under this
budget, they would see their taxes go up almost the same amount--
$2,000.
Small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy--that is
where most of our employment is occurring today. Yet this budget
conference agreement raises taxes on small businesses because all
income tax brackets above the 15-percent bracket will increase, and
small businesses pay on those upper tax brackets. Most small
businesses--in fact, the owners of small businesses report their
business income on their individual income tax returns and, in fact,
over 80 percent of filers in the top bracket report small business
income. So you think you are going to soak the rich by increasing the
top tax bracket? Well, you are increasing taxes for the small
businesses of America. That is who ends up paying the increased taxes.
According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses
represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. They employ about half of
all private sector employees. They generate between 60 to 80 percent of
the net new jobs annually. Increasing small business taxes will hurt
our economy.
How about investors? This is becoming an investor Nation, people
saving for their retirement, American seniors living off their savings.
In fact, every American who saves and invests rather than spending
their extra earnings will see their taxes go up under this budget.
The budget allows the 15-percent capital gains rate to go to 20
percent. That is a 33-percent increase in the tax rate. The dividends
tax rate will go up a whopping 164 percent. We talked about a little
bit of an increase--164 percent is not little. That is on dividends.
That is what seniors get when they invest their retirement savings and
get a dividend from the corporation they have invested in. That goes
from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.
Why are these rates important? Because keeping tax rates low on
investment income gives people the incentive to put their money to work
by investing it; by investing in businesses, small and large, and it
gives the businesses the resources they need to grow: to hire more
employees, to buy more equipment, produce more goods and services. All
this, of course, helps the economy grow; it helps produce more wealth
and, by the way, it helps produce more revenue for the Federal Treasury
as well.
I said we have become an investor Nation. Capital gains. Now, 45
percent of all elderly taxpayers reporting capital gains had an
adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less. Rich? We are going to tax the
rich here? No. We may be aiming at the rich, but we are hitting the
middle class. A $50,000 income is not rich. These are our senior
citizens' dividends. Mr. President, 67.6 percent of all elderly
taxpayers reporting dividend income had an adjusted gross income of
$50,000 or less. The same thing; these are not wealthy people. They are
receiving dividends based on retirement income, and they are going to
receive a whopping tax increase under the assumptions of this budget.
In fact, if you look at the data for all filers under $50,000, capital
gains that are $50,000 of income, 35.8 percent of the filers reported
capital gains income. Forty-one percent of the filers with incomes of
less than $50,000 reported qualified dividend income. So we are talking
about folks who are not wealthy, who are reporting not only income but
dividend income and capital gains income, getting a huge increase in
their taxes because the rates on dividends and capital gains are
increased under the assumptions of this budget.
As I said before, there has also been talk of not only taxes going
up, but the budget chairman actually said we have actually cut taxes by
about $187 billion. Now, this is--well, let's say it bears examination.
The tax cut the chairman is counting is simply the existence of the law
today. It is existing law. It is continuing that law. As he said
before, we don't have to take any action because it is already law, and
it continues for 2 more years. That is right. But it is not as if we
passed a law to cut taxes. We haven't. We have left them alone. That is
not cutting taxes.
This year we are going to enact a 1-year fix for the AMT because we
don't want people to have to pay for that. We are going to extend the
so-called tax extenders for businesses, such as the R&D tax credit. We
will do those things, but it is not as if the people should be grateful
to us for cutting their taxes. That is simply taking action to make
sure their taxes don't go up. It is to keep them exactly where they
are. That is not a tax cut; that is protecting people to retain the
existing level of taxation.
Then, the stimulus checks which make up the rest of this, they are
not a tax cut either. Remember, that is what the President did when he
negotiated with the House of Representatives and said: Let's stimulate
the economy by giving people $300 or $600 to spend, and that money is
starting to be received by Americans today.
So I don't think the Congress should be bragging about a big tax cut
when, in fact, all we have done is to retain existing rates, and all we
are going to do is retain existing rates. When I say all we are going
to do, believe me, that is important. It is important that we not let
taxes increase, but that is what this budget assumes. As the ranking
member of the committee pointed out, the biggest tax increase in the
history of the world is assumed in this budget, and here is the
problem: Right now, Congress does not have to do anything, as the
chairman of the Budget Committee said. That is true. But in 2 years, we
do have to do something or else taxes are going to go up. This is not a
matter of stopping a big tax increase; this is a matter of all these
tax rates--the marginal income tax rates, the death tax, capital gains
rates, dividend rates--all these rates that are currently in law
expire, and they are all increased unless we act.
That is the assumption of this budget. That is why it would be
irresponsible for us to support this budget and assume Congress is not
going to do the responsible thing and stop those tax rates from
increasing. That would be devastating to our economy. It is the last
thing you would want to do in a time of economic downturn, and it would
be the last straw for American families who are already seeing too much
of their income having to go to buy gasoline, to buy a quart of milk or
to buy whatever else it is they need for their families with the prices
having gone up. To have a tax increase on top of that would, as I said,
not only be devastating for the economy, but it would be critical to
American families. Ironically, if we are concerned about revenues to
the Federal Government, it is also the best way to make sure the
Government doesn't collect very much revenue either, because in an
economic downturn, the people don't make as much, and therefore they
don't pay the Government as much in taxes.
The bottom line is this is a budget that assumes a huge tax increase.
It doesn't do a thing to cut taxes. It is not something we should be
supportive of. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from New
Hampshire earlier
[[Page 10167]]
in pointing out the fact it is a budget Congress should reject on
behalf of the American people. Go back, do this work over again, abide
by the instructions to conferees that we passed on the floor of the
Senate last week, and ensure that these things can occur without
raising taxes, which would be the last straw for the economy we are in
right now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to, once again, thank
Senator Conrad and all the conferees who have worked so hard. I know
Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad may have a different view on the
budget, but certainly I appreciate our ranking member's professionalism
in working across the aisle on so many issues and working to place this
budget resolution, the final resolution, in front of us.
The chairman and the conferees are presenting the American people
with a budget resolution that lays out the Nation's priorities and
focuses on what we ought to be doing to improve our economy. We put
together a budget, and as a member of the Budget Committee, I am very
proud to have played a role in putting it together. I believe it gets
it right. It is about our values and our priorities. It is about
investing in our future as Americans.
Today we are saying our Nation's budget, which lays out our values
and priorities, will focus on the economy, on jobs, and on the future
of the country. I come from the great State of Michigan, where the
issue of jobs is very serious and very real. People in Michigan want us
to act in a way that is going to allow people to have a good-paying
job, to be able to work hard, to be able to pay the bills and pay for
the outrageous gas prices and the soaring costs of health care and the
cost of college and food and all the other things that are squeezing
families on all sides. They want to know they have an opportunity to
work. We work hard in Michigan. People across this country, middle-
class families every day are working hard, and they want to know that
our Federal priorities include creating opportunities for people to
work, to be able to care for themselves and their families.
Let me first indicate it gets pretty old. You know, it seems the old,
tired refrain comes from colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
When in doubt, when you can't say anything about the economy under this
White House and 6 of the last 8 years under colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, when you can't say anything about soaring deficits,
when you can't say anything about the inaction and unwillingness of the
White House to work with us in a manner that will quickly respond to
the housing crisis; when you can't say anything about any of those
things, what do you say about Democrats? Well, it is the tired, old
refrain of tax and spend.
I wish to remind my colleagues that this budget resolution is 1
percent higher than the President's budget resolution--1 percent
higher--and it returns to a surplus. In other words, we balance the
budget in 2012 and in 2013. It is a 1-percent difference. What does
that mean? This is not about tax increases on low-income or middle-
income families. This is not a budget that is focusing on adding costs
to families. This is a budget that focuses on taking costs off families
and valuing work and creating opportunity and investing in the future
of our children with education, focusing on the things Americans want
to see focused on. People in America are saying, what about us? We are
seeing a war where we are spending $12 billion a month, unpaid for--
hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into rebuilding roads
and schools in Iraq, even though they have oil revenues and have not
been contributing, as they should, to rebuilding their own country.
People in America are saying, what about us, our roads, schools, and
jobs in America?
That is what this budget addresses. We focus on the future and on
making sure American families have the confidence that we are putting
them first. Last year, Congress began fixing the fiscal mess caused by
the administration's 6 years of neglecting the homefront. This budget
continues that effort by focusing on what is most important to American
families.
We have three priorities in this budget: jobs, jobs, and jobs. I am
very proud of that.
Today, we are bringing fiscal sanity back to our budget, while at the
same time investing in a plan that will create good-paying American
jobs, including rebuilding our Nation's aging infrastructure, our
roads, bridges, and other infrastructure--in other words, rebuilding
American jobs, rebuilding America, with jobs that cannot be outsourced
overseas--good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs--investing in America.
Promoting education and job training is so critically needed in this
fast-paced, changing world we live in. There is also investment in the
future of our energy economy. I am proud my green collar jobs
initiative is a part of that. Let me speak to that for a moment. As
part of our effort to create jobs and look to the future, I was very
pleased that the Senate included my green collar jobs initiative, and
that it is substantially intact as it comes out of the conference
committee. We focused on 5 areas in the proposal that we put forward:
energy efficiency, and conservation, jobs, weatherizing buildings,
grants to State and local communities for energy efficiency, and
conservation. We can immediately create thousands and thousands of jobs
by doing the right thing on energy efficiency and conservation.
Secondly, there is advanced battery technology. When you come from my
great State, where we are proud to make automobiles, the buzz word
these days is ``batteries.'' If we are going to compete and meet our
mandate on fuel efficiency and move away from dependence on foreign
oil, we have to be investing in advanced battery technology. Right now,
China, Japan, and South Korea are ahead of us. When Ford Motor Company
decided to make their first hybrid SUV--and I am proud they did that--
they could not find a battery in America. They had to buy that from
Japan. With all of the American ingenuity and the smart people we have,
we have not been investing in advanced battery technology.
Last year, the President's budget had something like $22 million in
it versus the hundreds of million around the world. Our plan that we
passed here in the Senate had $250 million in investment in advanced
battery technology to make sure we can do the plug-ins, and that GM can
quickly move on this technology, and Chrysler is investing in hybrids
and other technology, so our companies can compete globally because
America invests in our technology.
Retooling older plants. We don't want to say come over and we will
build you the plant. We want to keep the jobs in America.
As to biofuel production and access, we know we have spent a lot of
energy on biofuel production.
Infrastructure and assets are very important. It is great to make the
fuel. We want to grow it in Michigan--and we are--but if you cannot buy
it at the pump, it doesn't do much good. This focuses on that as well.
Finally, green job training programs, to create new opportunities.
That is what this resolution is all about--value work and looking to
the future. This budget provides, as well, $2.5 billion more than the
President requested for transportation accounts for rebuilding America.
It fully funds the highway and transit programs authorized by the
highway bill and includes funding for airport improvement--all things
that help us and our communities create safer ways to be able to move
around, whether it is airports or roads or whether it is commerce or
families going on a vacation or going back and forth to work. These are
investments in America. It is about creating good-paying jobs.
The Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion
in highway spending, you create 47,500 good-paying middle-class jobs.
This budget recognizes that. It also creates $2 billion in economic
activity for every $1 billion we invest in infrastructure.
[[Page 10168]]
I am glad to see, for the benefit of our country and our families,
that the conferees have also invested in other important areas related
to education and job training for the future. This is absolutely
critical for us.
This budget resolution reflects the values and priorities of the
American people. It makes sure we are rejecting the President's efforts
to eliminate the COPS program. We want to keep our families safe in
their communities, with our children being able to play in parks and on
the streets, and know that we have community police officers available
to help keep them safe. Then there are the Byrne grants to help our
first responders, the firefighters and police officers.
We also, I am proud to say, keep the promise we began last year to
fully fund veterans health care as a major priority for our country.
So there is a lot to celebrate in this budget. On top of the new
investment and new priorities and changing the way things are done,
these investments are paid for because we are following what is called
the pay-go rules, which helped balance the budget back in the 1990s and
brought us into surplus at the end of the last decade.
We cannot mortgage our children's future, as the administration has
done, with soaring deficits and record spending that is not paid for.
Instead, we invest in our children's future, in our families, and we
balance the budget by 2012.
Again, I congratulate our chairman for his tenacity, his passion, and
his commitment to doing the right thing, doing it in a fiscally
responsible way. We have all worked so hard to lay out a vision of
America that is about jobs, about the future, about investing in
America. It is time we did that. The American people expect us to do no
less.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from
Michigan, Senator Stabenow, who is an extremely valuable member of the
Budget Committee, for her contribution throughout the budget process
this year. She has been an absolute champion of the green jobs
initiative. We have $2 billion in this conference report for green
jobs, which is not only going to help the economy, but it is also going
to be good environmentally, and we think even better long term in the
economics of the country, because we are going to have, as the world
turns its attention with greater concern to environmental issues, high-
paying jobs here in this country.
That takes some work, some investment. That is provided for in this
conference report. Frankly, it is one of the things I am most proud of
in this conference report. It would not have happened without the
effort of the Senator from Michigan. She deserves great credit for
that. She has also been one of the real leaders on making certain that
our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan have the health care
they need and deserve. That is the second part of this bill of which I
am especially proud--the additional resources--some $3 billion above
what the President requested--for health care for our Nation's
veterans.
A third area in which the Senator from Michigan has been especially
helpful has been the health care. She has championed health information
technology, and we have a reserve fund here to take advantage of the
opportunity that is out there for the Nation by more broadly adopting
the use of information technology in medical care.
The RAND Corporation has told us--and the Senator has brought it to
our attention repeatedly, and that is why it is very much in my mind--
that we can save $80 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, if we would
broadly adopt information technology in the health care industry, the
health care sector. Think of that--$80 billion a year, over 5 years.
That is more than $400 billion. So that makes common sense.
I will conclude by saying I think this has been a healthy and full
debate today. We have had almost 4 hours, which is about typical on a
conference report. I am being informed by the leadership we will not
vote until tomorrow morning. I am told that the likelihood is that the
budget, which is subject to agreement with both sides--I am being told
of the likelihood that the budget vote will not occur until perhaps
9:30 tomorrow morning. I am told the farm bill override vote will also,
most likely, occur tomorrow.
I don't have that conclusively, but that is the initial indication I
am receiving, that that is the most likely outcome. So I urge Senators
not to jump in their cars and head home without checking out with
leadership staffs on both sides, but that in fact is the likelihood. I
don't think I have anything further to add.
I do think we have laid out the case for this conference report
clearly and, I hope, in a compelling way. This has been a difficult
challenge--to write a budget in an election year. We know the Congress
has not adopted a budget in an election year since 2000. It is
extraordinary, if you think about it. This country, in an election
year, has not had a budget since 2000. That cannot be the way we do
business around here.
I am very proud we had a budget last year. I am very proud we are on
the brink of getting a budget this year, even though it is an election
year. I hope that sets an example for whoever is in charge that getting
a budget does matter.
We have to bend our best efforts on both sides to make certain that
this country, the greatest nation on Earth, has a budget. That is about
as basic as it can get.
I again thank the Senator from Michigan for her leadership and her
great assistance on the Budget Committee and also on the Agriculture
Committee on this very important legislation on which we will be
seeking to override the President's veto. That bill really should not
be called a farm bill. It is far more than that. It is a food bill, an
energy bill, a conservation bill, a trade bill, although inadvertently
the enrolling clerk over in the House dropped off the trade title. So
that will create a bit of a challenge for us as well.
I thank very much the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
data on pay-go.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
GOP CLAIMS ON PAYGO FULL OF HOLES
Alleged ``Real PAYGO Violations''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Fact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration Reform............................ $30.3 B 0
--Never passed Senate.....................
--Fully paid for on unified basis.........
Energy Bill................................... 4.2 B -$52 M
--Final bill sent to President more than
paid for.................................
--Passed Senate 86-8......................
Mental Health Parity.......................... 2.8 B 0
--In conference--final bill will be fully
paid for.................................
--Passed Senate by unanimous consent......
Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments......... 0.2 B -4 M
--Final bill sent to President more than
paid for.................................
--Passed Senate by unanimous consent......
Minimum Wage Increase......................... 50 M 0
--Fully paid for on unified basis.........
Water Resources Development Act............... 4 M -5 M
--Final bill sent to President more than
paid for.................................
--Passed Senate 81-12.....................
-------------------------
TOTAL................................. $38 B 61 M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SBC GOP ``Swiss-Chesse-Go'' chart, SBC Majority staff.
Note: Minimum wage increase in 2007 supplemental was fully paid for on
unified basis, but had small net on-budget cost.
Alleged ``Gimmicks to Get Around PAYGO''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Fact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHIP Reauthorization......................... $45 B -$207 M
--More than paid for over 6 and 11 years..
--5-year reauthorization--Congress will
reauthorize in 2012 with new policies and
offsets..................................
Farm Bill..................................... 27.5 B -102 M
--More than paid for over 6 and 11 years..
--5-year reauthorization--Congress will
reauthorize in 2012 with new policies and
offsets..................................
Higher Ed Reconciliation Bill................. 26 B -752 M/5 yrs
--More than paid for over 6 and 11 years.. ........ 3.6 B/10 yrs
--Savings will continue to grow in decades
beyond budget window.....................
2007 Supplemental--County Payments/PILT/MILC.. 6.5 B 0
--PAYGO rule applies to mandatory spending
and revenues only--not to appropriations.
--Discretionary spending controlled by
separate caps............................
[[Page 10169]]
--2008 budget resolution established new
60-vote point of order to limit changes
in mandatory spending on appropriations
bills and strengthen PAYGO even further..
-------------------------
TOTAL................................. 105 B -3.9 B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SBC GOP ``Swiss-Cheese-Go'' chart, SBC Majority Staff.
Note: Per section 201 of 2008 budget resolution, net savings enacted
pursuant to reconciliation are not included on PAYGO ledger. They are
reserved solely for deficit reduction.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this budget resolution conference report
allows Congress to take action on many of America's priorities.
This conference report starts by providing for many priorities
through the revenue side of the budget.
This agreement includes monies to pay for extending expired and
expiring revenue provisions.
These provisions include the teacher expense deduction, which helps
teachers who buy school supplies.
These provisions include school construction bonds, to help repair
our country's deteriorating school infrastructure.
And these provisions include help to businesses to stay competitive.
In particular, the budget assumes extending the research and
development credit, which gives businesses an incentive to increase
research. This will keep America as a top innovator in science and
technology.
This conference agreement on the budget resolution also includes
monies to provide for education tax reform. So far this year, the
Finance Committee has held two tax reform hearings. One of the major
themes of the testimony has been simplification.
Witnesses almost always cite education tax incentives as an example
of needless complexity. This conference report would allow us to help
make education more accessible and affordable by making the education
incentives easier to use.
The agreement also includes my amendment that was successfully added
to the budget resolution on the Senate floor.
My amendment took the surpluses in the budget resolution and gave
them back to the hard-working American families who earned them.
My amendment provided for some important priorities so that the
business of America's families can be taken care of.
First, my amendment provided for permanence of the 10-percent tax
bracket. That is an across-the-board tax cut for every taxpayer.
Second, my amendment provided for making permanent the changes to the
child tax credit. That is a $1,000 tax credit per child. This tax
credit recognizes that a family's ability to pay taxes decreases as the
family size increases. Unless we act, the child tax credit will fall to
$500 per child in 2010.
Third, my amendment provided for making permanent marriage penalty
relief. This relief makes sure that a married couple filing a joint
return has the same deductions and tax brackets as they would if they
filed separately as individuals.
Fourth, my amendment provided for making permanent the increased
dependent care credit and changes to the adoption credit.
Fifth, my amendment provided for tax provisions to help military
families. And I am pleased to say that these are very close to being
adopted by the Congress. This shows that Congress values the sacrifices
that our men and women in uniform make for us every day.
Nearly 1\1/2\ million American service men and women have served in
Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000 troops have been wounded in
action.
Congress is about to show our support for our service men and women
by making the Tax Code a little more troop-friendly.
We will extend the special tax rules that make sense for our military
that expire in 2007 and 2008.
We can eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present
difficulties to veterans and servicemembers.
One of these roadblocks is how the Tax Code treats survivors of our
fallen heroes. The families of soldiers killed in the line of duty
receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000.
The Tax Code restricts the survivors from putting this benefit into a
Roth IRA. We are about to make sure that the family members of fallen
soldiers can take advantage of these tax-favored accounts.
Another roadblock in the tax laws impedes our disabled veterans. I am
talking about the time limit for filing for a tax refund. Most VA
disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But many
disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of
rejected claims.
Once a disabled vet finally gets a favorable award, the good news is
that the disability award is tax-free. The bad news is that many of
these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from
filing a tax refund claim. We are about to give disabled veterans an
extra year to claim their tax refunds.
Most troops doing the heavy lifting in combat situations are the
lower ranking, lower income soldiers. Their income needs to count
towards computing the earned-income tax credit, or EITC. Under current
law, however, income earned by a soldier in a combat zone is exempt
from income tax. This actually hurts low-income military personnel
under the EITC.
The EITC combat-pay exception allows combat zone pay to count as
earned income for purposes of determining the credit. That way, more
soldiers qualify for the EITC. But this EITC combat-pay exception
expires at the end of 2007.
We are about to make this provision permanent.
The budget resolution conference report also provides for some
certainty to American families on the estate tax.
Lowering the estate tax to 2009 levels is the least that we can do as
estate tax reform.
I am pleased that the conference report recommends appropriations of
$240 million more than the President requested for the administrative
costs for the Social Security Administration for fiscal year 2009.
These funds are badly needed to reduce the enormous waiting times
that many applicants for Social Security disability benefits must wait
before their claims are finally approved. Funds are also badly needed
to improve the low levels of service to the public in SSA's local field
offices.
I am pleased to see that the resolution captures Democratic health
care priorities and provides economic relief for families. It provides
funding for maternal and child health; nutrition assistance for women,
infants, and children or WIC; and the Social Services block grant. And
the resolution accommodates legislation to modernize the unemployment
insurance program.
The resolution retains the reserve funds passed in the Senate to
reauthorize CHIP and expand coverage to eligible but unenrolled kids.
This is a personal priority for me.
The budget also works to protect seniors from unscrupulous marketing
of Medicare drug plans, thereby laying the groundwork for a strong
Medicare bill currently under negotiation.
The resolution also provides for important improvements to Medicare,
such as promoting the use of Health IT.
And it would set up a ``comparative effectiveness'' reserve fund to
help us learn what treatments work best and most efficiently to keep
Americans healthy. I am working with Chairman Conrad to introduce
legislation on this topic this year.
All of these investments take steps toward addressing the underlying
growth in health care costs.
The resolution is also tough on government waste, fraud, and abuse
and includes important program integrity initiatives to crack down on
wasteful or fraudulent spending in the Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance Programs.
This budget resolution also accounts for important international
trade priorities under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. The
resolution establishes a reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance
and a separate reserve fund for other trade initiatives. These reserve
funds will allow the Finance Committee to realize legislation to
reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, as well as pursue legislation
to extend trade preferences, reauthorize customs functions, and
implement bilateral trade agreements.
[[Page 10170]]
Mr. President, I am thus pleased that this budget resolution
conference report allows Congress to take action on these important
priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement
the improvements contemplated in the resolution. And I urge my
colleagues to support the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished majority
leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am sorry to interrupt my friend from
North Dakota, but we are not going to have any more votes tonight. We
expect votes early in the morning, as early as 9:30. They will go on
throughout the day. So everyone should be aware we are not going to
have a vote tonight on the budget or the farm bill, but we will do the
budget the first vote tomorrow, and after that we will move to the farm
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the leader. I was thinking about
this the other night. We don't thank the leader enough. We are blessed
on our side with a leader whom I think every Member on our side has
high confidence in because of his good judgment, his fairness, his
balance, his willingness to listen and then decide. Even though he may
not always agree with any one of us on a particular issue, he always
listens, and he does it with respect, and then he decides. He makes a
decision. I thank him for it. I know the role of leader is absolutely
the toughest job in this town. It is an extremely difficult, demanding
job, and our leader does an outstanding job of it. That is why he
enjoys the confidence of our colleagues and the affection of our
colleagues.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if I may thank the Senator from North
Dakota but also say there isn't anything that I agree to out here that
doesn't have the full consent of the Republican leader. So even though
Senator McConnell and I in public kick and bite and scratch and all
those things, I have the ability to work with him on issues, which
makes it possible for us to get business done outside the press and a
lot of times Senators.
I really appreciate my friend from North Dakota. He and I came to the
Senate together. I can remember the first time I saw Kent Conrad. It
was in the LBJ Room. It wasn't named the LBJ Room at the time. We were
there for the purpose of indoctrination--I don't know the right word--
but we were nominees of our parties. We were running for the Senate in
1986. Neither one of us was expected to get elected. We were both long
shots. He was running against an incumbent Senator. I was running
against President Reagan and Paul Laxalt. But we surprised them; we
won.
We have such a warm relationship. I love Lucy, his wife. When we
first came here, a lot of people mixed up Landra and Lucy because they
are both short, somewhat dark complected, but we don't mix them up.
I say to the people watching C-SPAN, the only Senators in this
Chamber are Senator Conrad, Senator Reid, and Senator Stabenow. Senator
Stabenow has indicated in a meeting we just completed that she said the
right thing at the right time to help us get to where we are today.
I am embarrassed with the kind words of my friend from North Dakota,
but I thank him very much.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the leader.
Madam President, I wish to indicate to the Chair that we have one
other Member on our side who is going to come to the Chamber to talk.
Senator Whitehouse is going to come. I think he will only be seeking
about 15 minutes, I say to the Chair. He will be here in 10 minutes. He
will seek only about 15 minutes. I mentioned this to Senator Gregg. So
after Senator Whitehouse, other than Senator Dodd, who might still come
for 6 or 7 minutes, that will complete speakers on our side. Senator
Gregg told me he does not believe he has any further speakers on his
side.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
THE BUDGET
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as we conclude the discussion on the
budget, in which the Presiding Officer participated so eloquently just
a few moments ago, I wanted to come to the floor because there is a
significant feature in America's fiscal picture that affects this
budget considerably but has not really gotten the attention it
deserves; that is, the debt of the United States of America that has
been run up by President George W. Bush. It is a frightening legacy,
really, because of the weight, the fiscal burden of it that will weigh
on our children and our grandchildren.
If I may, we calculated the Bush Debt at $7.7 trillion, and we did it
this way. We took the projections for the U.S. budget on the day George
Bush took office, which, as the Presiding Officer may recall, projected
that we actually would have no debt left at all in our country by as
early as fiscal year 2009--and, indeed, there was economic debate among
America's leading economists wondering if it is really good for our
country for America to be completely debt free. What is the ideal level
of debt? Should we maintain some level of debt? Are there potential
problems if the United States were to be completely debt free? That was
the discussion. That was what America was looking forward to.
The nonpartisan, professional Congressional Budget Office had a
projection on where that budget was going to go on the day George W.
Bush took office, and that is the top line of our projection. We call
it the Clinton budget landscape because it resulted from the economic
policies of the Clinton administration which left this country in such
good health for President George W. Bush. That was what could have
been. The other line is what he did, what this country has done to
itself fiscally under George W. Bush. When you compare the difference
between the upper line, where the country was going, and where George
Bush took us, the difference is the Bush Debt, and it amounts to $7.7
trillion. To me, that is an almost unimaginable number. So just to kind
of give an idea of how many zeros that will be, this is what it looks
like. That is $7.7 trillion. Even in the great State of Michigan, where
the Presiding Officer hails from, that is a big number. To somebody
like me, from Rhode Island, it is almost unimaginable. So I asked my
staff to give me some means of comparing, some way of thinking about
how big that number is.
This is a penny. And I asked my staff: If a penny was $1 billion and
you put a stack of pennies on my desk here, how high would that stack
of $1 billion pennies go to make $7.7 trillion? Well, they found out
that the stack of $1 billion pennies would have to go 39 feet high to
amount to $7.7 trillion. I don't think the television camera can take
this in, but from here to the very top of this room is about 39 feet of
$1 billion pennies. That is the enormous burden on our country from the
improvident, wasteful, feckless policies of the Bush administration.
I have a credit card. The distinguished Senator from Michigan has a
credit card. If we borrow money on our credit cards, we have to pay
interest. American families across the country work to pay interest on
mortgages, on credit cards, and on loans of various kinds. Well, guess
what. We have to pay a lot of interest on a debt such as we have. And
in the recent budget, as the Presiding Officer will recall, that we
just passed in the Budget Committee and that we are discussing on the
floor, there is $260 billion in interest, much of it paid to foreign
countries, on our national debt--$7.7 trillion of it run up by one
administration, the administration of George W. Bush.
Now, that $260 billion is another pretty big number. So I asked: What
could
[[Page 10171]]
we do with $260 billion if we didn't have to give it to the Saudis and
the Chinese and the Mexicans and everybody else we have borrowed money
from to fund George Bush's $7.7 trillion debt? Well, here is what we
could do: For starters, we could pay for health insurance for everyone.
We would have universal health care in this country. And you know what,
there would be money left over. With the money that was left over, you
could also add a million children--a million children--to Head Start
Programs. Universal health care for everyone, a million extra children
getting Head Start, and still there would be money left over. You could
double every Pell grant, which helps kids in America pay for college
and reach out and seize their futures. Universal health care, a million
extra kids in Head Start, and doubling every Pell Grant. And there
would still be money left over. With that last bit of money left over,
you could repair or replace 95 percent of the bridges that currently
need repair and reconstruction in America--not 100 percent, only 95
percent. You would have to wait until next year to do that last 5
percent.
That is what the cost to us is of an administration and a Republican
Congress that ran up $7.7 trillion in debt.
So I appreciate very much the ranking member who spoke eloquently
last week about the problem of that last $9.6 billion in discretionary
spending we authorized in the Senate-passed budget above the $1
trillion mark. We wouldn't need to worry about that $9.6 billion if his
colleagues and President Bush hadn't run up $7.7 trillion in debt for
Americans to have to pay in the future because this administration,
frankly, was too cowardly to pay its own way and has borrowed from
future generations to pay for the war in Iraq and to pay for tax cuts
for the richest Americans. In a country where the difference between
the wealthy and the poor, between the CEOs and the workers is growing
dramatically, is straining the very fabric of our society, instead of
bringing us together, what was the President's solution? Lots more tax
cuts for the very richest people, who are doing the absolute best
already, the ones who have nothing to worry about except whether they
take the Lincoln or they take the Benz. They are the ones who need the
tax cuts in this country? I don't think so. But the President did, and
he didn't even have the guts to pay for it or find the cuts. He
borrowed the money. That is why we are at $7.7 trillion.
So I think it is fascinating that we are having this budget
discussion. I want to salute our chairman, Senator Conrad, who is
absolutely brilliant with the budget. He works so well with people in
this body and has such enormous credibility that he is able to work
through issues in a very special way--in large part because of his
personal character and his credibility. We all benefit from his being
able to do that.
But he has had to work very hard to try to bring this budget into
balance, 3 or 4 years out from now. It is not easy work, putting this
budget together.
When people come to the floor and criticize his efforts and try to
knock $9.6 billion off and worry that this might not be fiscally
prudent, it is astonishing when those remarks come from the people who
aided and abetted George Bush in running up $7.7 trillion in money that
we owe now to the rest of the world, that we will have to pay off
indefinitely, that will be a weight and a burden on the shoulders of
this country for decades if not generations.
I actually think we need to do something about the $7.7 trillion Bush
Debt. I recommended that we have a formal commission of some kind, an
authority whose job it is to take the best and the brightest people who
understand our economy and figure out how we pay down $7.7 trillion. It
is really a disaster.
Some of us have served in State government before we came here. Some
of us have served in municipal government. If there is a crisis at the
State government level--an economic crisis--if a municipality has a
terrible fire in a facility and has to rebuild, you take that problem
and you set it aside and you create a revenue stream and you deal with
it. You don't try to force it through the regular operating budget of
the State or of the municipality.
We may be at the stage where the Bush Debt of $7.7 trillion is so
serious for us fiscally that we should start thinking about getting
together a group of the most learned economists, the people who care
the most about America's future, who see the hazard to our welfare, to
our national security that this kind of debt creates, and can think
creatively about how we can set up special revenue streams to pay it
down and begin to bring our country back in balance.
I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair in listening to these remarks.
I did think as we closed out the budget debate it was important to
remind everybody that, for all the big talk the Bush administration may
make about fiscal prudence and about being responsible, it is the most
fiscally imprudent and the most irresponsible administration in our
history. Indeed, President Bush alone has borrowed more money from
foreign countries than all 42 Presidents who preceded him--not any one
of them, all of them. If we add up everything they borrowed through the
entire history of the Republic, in just one Presidency he has them
beat.
It takes a little brass to be able to come and argue for fiscal
prudence and responsibility and not mention that President Bush and the
Republican Congress ran up $7.7 trillion in debt. I thought we should
think about it and reflect on that as this debate concludes.
I appreciate working with the very distinguished Senator from
Michigan. Her work on the Budget Committee is very valuable. She is a
wonderful colleague to me, and I appreciate the indulgence this
evening.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, both the international community and
experts from across our country have come to a definite consensus.
Climate change is not a theory. It is a reality. We may not like it,
but we have to confront it. Rising temperatures, melting icecaps, and
extreme weather show the increasing effects of global warming in the
United States and especially around the globe. Without action, we will
be unable to avoid dangerous consequences for our children,
grandchildren, and subsequent generations. We risk the health of our
citizens, the well-being of our coastal areas, the productivity of our
farms, forests, and fisheries.
There is solid support in this institution and around the country for
a mandatory cap-and-trade approach to reducing carbon emissions. All
three Presidential candidates--Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain--and
both political parties have agreed on this philosophy. The Senate
passed the Lieberman-Warner bill out of committee in December. It is
likely to reach the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks. I am not
saying a climate change bill will pass this year. I am saying a climate
change bill will pass. No more burying our heads in the sand, no more
ignoring the issue and putting it off for another day. It is not a
question of whether; it is a question of when and a question of what it
will look like.
As a manufacturing State reliant on coal--not too different from the
State of the Presiding Officer--Ohio is going to be significantly
affected by the climate change bill regardless of its specifics. I am
working with Senators from other industrial States--Senators Casey,
Bayh, Lugar, Durbin, Stabenow, Levin, and others--to ensure that the
effects on manufacturing
[[Page 10172]]
jobs are considered as this legislation is drafted. We can't shut our
eyes or turn our backs or hope that global warming goes away and
becomes someone else's problem. That is not going to happen. But we can
maximize Ohio's gains, Pennsylvania's gains, the gains of other States,
and minimize those losses, looking first at the opportunities presented
to us by global change legislation.
The mandatory cap-and-trade approach to climate change will create a
market for clean energy and green jobs. By creating markets for clean
energy, we can stabilize our Nation's energy supply, reduce greenhouse
gases, and bolster manufacturing in Lima, Zaynesville, Toledo, and
Ashtabula. It has been estimated that in terms of a global market, the
advanced and alternative energy sector will double several times over
in the next decade, from a $55 billion industry to a $226 billion
business. Wind power alone, it is estimated, will grow from $18 billion
to a $61 billion market. In the last 15 months, I have conducted
roundtables in Ohio, bringing together 15 or 20 people to talk about
problems, about their communities. You can see what is happening in a
State such as mine.
The Cleveland Foundation, in conjunction with Case Western Reserve
University, is going to build a field of wind turbines in Lake Erie,
the first time wind turbines have ever been placed in a freshwater
lake.
I have seen the Composite Center in Dayton which makes new, lighter,
stronger materials, initially for airplanes, now for fuel-efficient
automobiles and wind turbines. The University of Toledo is doing some
of the best wind turbine research in the United States. In Columbus and
Ohio State, there is the Center for Automotive Research, the work they
are doing for more fuel-efficient automobiles. Today I talked with
someone who was visiting Washington from Battelle Institute. They are
doing astonishing things on a whole range of issues; Stark State and
Rolls-Royce on fuel cells. Oberlin College has built the largest
building of any college campus in the country fully powered by solar
energy. The problem is those solar cells and panels are not made in
this country because we don't make them. They were bought from Germany
and Japan.
At the same time, we are seeing the largest solar company in the
country producing near Toledo in Perrysburg. In Ashtabula, right across
the border from Erie, we are seeing components for wind turbines. In
place after place, Ohio is helping to lead the way to make my State the
Silicon Valley of renewable energy.
Ohio has the potential to create 20,000 new jobs through renewable
energy projects. That puts Ohio second only to California in terms of
potential job creation. But we have a lot of work to do. Any climate
change legislation must invest in the deployment of renewable energy
technology and promote green job growth. That is why I introduced
legislation called the Green Energy Production Act last month. It is an
energy bill, an environment bill, and a jobs bill. The bill creates a
government corporation that will set up loan programs and grant
programs for green energy manufacturers, mostly small businesses, to
get them to develop products and get them to market.
Over 5 years, the bill would invest $36 billion with no political
strings attached, no Government picking winners and losers but
companies that need capital that are just taking off, small businesses,
businesses that need to grow, businesses that need to expand. Some $36
billion will be invested in green energy manufacturing. We have great
R&D in my State, but the big problem is commercialization, the key to
creating jobs in my State.
Speaking of jobs, we can't overlook the tremendous challenges the
industrial Midwest will face under climate change legislation. My State
is the seventh largest in the country by population. We are the fourth
largest carbon-emitting State, behind California, Texas, and New York.
In the past year and a half, I have held roundtables all over my State
in some 60 of the 88 counties. They have given me an opportunity to be
with workers and business people and civic leaders and local government
officials.
One thing is crystal clear: Ohioans are anxious about their
communities' futures, and the statistics match their anxiety. More than
40,000 manufacturing plants have shut down in the United States since
2001. More than 3.3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, about
one-sixth of all U.S. manufacturing jobs. My State has lost more than
200,000 jobs. Pennsylvania is comparable. The simple fact is, our
economy cannot prosper unless we manufacture and sell goods as a State
and a nation. Manufacturing is too important to the prosperity of this
country and to our economic and national security. Manufacturing is too
important to ignore, as this Government has done in the last few years.
I know, given a level playing field, our companies can outcompete any
around the globe. Any climate change legislation must be developed in
conjunction with manufacturers to ensure U.S. competitiveness with
other growing industrial giants in the world, particularly China and
India. We must work together to ensure that domestic manufacturers are
protected from imports that come from countries without comparable
climate change legislation. That means working together to provide
appropriate transition assistance to our energy intensive industries.
My State, in some sense, specializes in energy-intensive industries--
steel, chemicals, glass, cement, aluminum. We must work together to
minimize any economic harm while ensuring the environmental integrity
of the climate change legislation.
The bill that came out of committee needs to do a better job. It has
made progress from the original bill to the substitute bill brought
forward by Senator Boxer. It has made major progress, but it has to do
a better job of addressing the need, particularly in people's own
personal electric bills and the cost of energy to manufacturers. The
bill needs to help low- and middle-income consumers who will face
higher energy costs and must help communities and workers who are
displaced due to a shift from coal power. It means providing support
necessary to create green jobs in Ohio and across the Midwest, and it
means helping those energy-intensive manufacturers I was talking about
with their energy costs and with unregulated international competition.
Some environmental groups quote economic models saying that business
under a cap-and-trade program will be all wine and roses. They are on
one side. Some business groups are touting economic models that predict
climate change legislation will send us all back to living in caves.
Both sides are wrong. It is not going to be that easy, but it is also
not going to put American business out of business.
One last point. When you talk to people about climate change, one of
the first questions that always comes up is what do we do about China
and India. If they are not going to, why should we, in some sense,
unilaterally disarm as a country, putting more and more costs on Ohio
businesses in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati? Why should we
put more cost on these businesses, when China and India are not doing
that? We have three possibilities. One is do nothing. That is
unacceptable. We have two other possibilities: To work with countries
around the world on bringing them to a level of climate change
comparable to the level we want to get to; one is multilateral
environment and climate change agreements, negotiations, Kyoto-type
agreements among all the major industrial powers in the world. That
will take years. That will perhaps only be as successful as Kyoto,
which wasn't very successful, ultimately.
The other path to walk down is what we do about trade legislation,
about accepting those products coming into the United States from other
countries. When we have pretty strong environmental laws, you know in
your State what has happened with the steel industry, where they have
put huge numbers of dollars into scrubbers and other kinds of
environmental cleanup. China and India, frankly, don't do that. When we
buy products from China and India,
[[Page 10173]]
we buy steel from them, discounting the issue of toxic toys and
contaminants in vitamins and all the unsafe products they send us that
are ultimately consumer products, but when we buy steel from China and
India, that steel is made by cheaper labor, and it is also made with
very weak environmental rules.
The only way to change that, to get China and India to the table, if
you will, if we will not do the negotiations that will be so difficult
and tedious and take so long, is to say, every time we import steel
from China and India, steel where there is an environmental cost in its
production, we charge a tariff at the border, a tariff reflecting the
cost that they have not borne but that our manufacturers bear on the
production of that steel. So why should a steel company in Lorain or a
foundry in Mahoning Valley have to pay these huge additional costs
under climate change to deal with their carbon emissions, when people
in China and India don't? The only way to equalize that and to make
this competitive and keep American business competitive is to figure
out what it actually costs China and what moneys China and India save
by not coming up to the same level of environmental protection that we
do.
That should always have been part of the trade debate. The Bush
administration has never believed that. That is one of the reasons we
have lost so many manufacturing jobs in my State, since President Bush
took office--bad trade policy, bad environmental policy, bad labor
policy.
Ultimately, this climate change issue is going to be about equalizing
the cost of making air cleaner, limiting carbon emissions, dealing with
all the issues around CO2. The way to do that is through a
trade policy that works for us, for China, for India, and especially
works for our grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and those subsequent
generations. We must work together in this institution to shape
legislation that truly addresses global climate change while protecting
our manufacturing jobs. That means working assiduously with countries
around the world in reaching those goals.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENSIGN. 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. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
____________________
LESSONS FROM 1787
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to address some of the
critical issues this body faces at this point in history, and to
reflect on why these challenges are surmountable if we focus on working
together to forge ahead.
These are clearly not easy times. We are engaged in a global battle
for the future of freedom. We are up against radical Islamic extremists
who will do anything they can to annihilate those who do not live and
believe their way.
At home, we face some daunting questions when it comes to expanding
opportunity for all Americans. So do we follow a proven path of tax
relief? Can we change the way we educate our children to prepare them
for global competition in the 21st century? How do we provide quality
health care that is accessible and affordable for all of our families?
How do we secure our borders and strengthen legal immigration? Can we
come together to make difficult decisions about the future of
entitlements before they bankrupt this country?
Today, we face the task of funding the global war against Islamic
extremists, providing our troops with the resources they need and
prioritizing funding so we do not incur unnecessary debt.
Yes, these are tough questions, with serious consequences. But more
than two centuries ago, a group of patriots convened to write our
Constitution, and they provided the framework for the Government in
which we have the honor to serve today.
They faced questions we take for granted centuries later but which
could only have been resolved by incredible vision and the grace of
God.
As Delegate James Wilson stated:
. . . we are providing a Constitution for future generations
and not merely for the circumstances of the moment.
How votes would be apportioned in the Congress was one of the first
and most difficult questions this convention tackled. The smaller
States wanted an equal vote, and the larger States, obviously,
preferred a proportional vote. Some argued that the vote in the lower
House should be based on taxes paid. There were threats of breaking up
States to make them smaller and more manageable to govern. Decisions
had to be made regarding the terms of Members of Congress. How would
they be paid? What powers would be granted to the Government?
Remember, this was a country that had fought its way out from under
the control of a powerful monarchy. The Framers of the Constitution
were incredibly aware of that fact.
The Great Compromise was the measure that gave every State two
Senators. But would foreigners be permitted to serve in the Congress?
Where would the seat of Government be? Would officers of the Government
be required to swear an oath to support the Constitution? Who would
ratify the Constitution--the States or the people?
To think today about the number of decisions and compromises that
were made over the course of a summer is humbling. The North Carolina
delegates wrote to their Governor:
A very large Field presents to our view without a single
Straight or eligible Road that has been trodden by the feet
of Nations.
Yet great thought, debate, and deliberation went into every single
decision. Issues were often revisited time and again before a consensus
was painstakingly reached.
The Constitution was by no means thrown together quickly or
haphazardly. Once decisions were ultimately made about the branches of
Government and their powers, a document needed to be artfully drafted
to steer the United States in 1787 as well as for generations to come.
The product was nothing short of miraculous. Yet the Constitution was
still not a done deal.
The Constitution and its revolutionary ideas had many supporters, but
it also faced fierce opposition. It was described as ``a most
ridiculous piece of business'' by some. Those who stood against the
Constitution honed in on people's fears. After all, this was a
completely experimental government with no proven model to follow. As
delegate Davie of North Carolina declared: ``It is much easier to alarm
people than to inform them.''
Fortunately for this Nation the constitutionalists prevailed. To
study the transformation of a blank slate of hopes and aspirations to a
functioning Constitution that would guide a democracy for more than 200
years is awesome. There are several valuable lessons that I wish to
share with my colleagues.
It is difficult to pass legislation today with a closely divided
Senate. It was painfully difficult to make decisions about forming a
new government and then determine and agree on what should be included
in our Constitution. To make progress even more frustrating, a subject
already voted on could be reconsidered again the next day and voted on
again.
But these men did not let the process interfere with their progress.
Their experience and their reasonableness shined during the most
difficult days. They understood if they were serious about creating
this Constitution, they would have to work together and consider and
respect each other's differences.
In the end, the Constitution was the work of those for it and those
against it. They came to many compromises in order to make the final
product that all could live with. John Adams described the Constitution
as:
If not the greatest exertion of human understanding, the
greatest single effort of national deliberation that the
world has ever seen.
[[Page 10174]]
Although I serve as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial
Committee, I have always prided myself on reaching across the aisle to
work for the common good. For example, my home State of Nevada has
greatly benefited from the work Senator Reid and I have done together
on several public lands bills. He brings certain people to the table
who trust him; I bring others to the table who trust me. We encourage a
dialogue that has resulted in crucial legislation for our State. I
imagine this is the kind of give and take that made the Constitution
possible.
Another important lesson from the Constitutional Convention was the
understanding of the implications that our leaders' words have around
the world. There were people who were completely opposed to the
Constitution, but they knew how damaging their opinions could be,
especially if those opinions were made overseas.
Benjamin Franklin stated:
The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrificed to the
public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them
abroad. Within these walls they were born and here they shall
die.
I think this is a critical flaw that is too often made in this body
today. Our words have consequences. Today, it is much more difficult to
contain what we say. Technology ensures that our enemies have access to
the same television shows, Internet sites, and newspapers that our
citizens have today. It is naive to think that a debate on the floor
about retreating from Iraq has no impact on those plotting against us.
It absolutely feeds into their strategy and their hope for our failure
and our demise. We should all remember Benjamin Franklin's approach of
working to contain our opinions that may be harmful to our Nation.
Finally, there comes a time after a contentious issue when we must
come together and move forward. Abraham White, a fierce opponent to the
Constitution, gave his word that he would work to convince his
constituents to submit to the new law of the land and to live in peace
under it.
Mr. President, 220 years ago, the States were in the midst of
deciding whether they would ratify the Constitution. It was the
pinnacle of a turbulent summer that left many of our delegates amazed
at what they had actually achieved. George Washington called it
``little short of a miracle.'' The entire effort, from the first days
of the convention to the parades that celebrated the United States and
its Constitution, was in fact a miracle. Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia
physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, described the
unparalleled emotion that was shared by all during the Philadelphia
celebration of the Fourth of July--even greater than at any wartime
victory. His description included the words: ``We have become a
Nation.''
It is overwhelming to think about the work that was done hundreds of
years ago so that we could continue to live and uphold the tenets of an
enduring Constitution today. What a remarkable tribute to the delegates
of the Convention and to the leaders whose vision led to the
ratification of our Constitution.
I hope we can keep in mind the many hurdles overcome in 1787 by the
Constitutional Convention and the men who were gathered there and come
together in drafting a real supplemental that will fund our troops,
give our military leaders the tools they need, and show the Nation we
are united and that we are committed together in this global war
against radical Islamic extremists. We have a tremendous legacy on
which to continue building. Let's commit to doing that.
I yield the floor.
____________________
THE MERIDA INITIATIVE
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2008 supplemental
appropriations bill provides $450 million for the Merida Initiative,
including $350 million for Mexico and $100 million for Central America,
Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. This is the first installment of an
ongoing commitment to help our neighbors to the south respond to the
growing violence and corruption of heavily armed drug cartels. It
represents a tenfold increase in assistance for Mexico in a single
year.
The Merida Initiative is a partnership, and we recognize that
achieving its goals presents an extraordinarily difficult challenge.
The United States is the principal market for most of the illegal drugs
coming from Mexico and Central America. We are also the source of most
of the guns used by the Mexican and Central American cartels. Each
country contributes to this problem, and we each have to be part of the
solution.
President Calderon and President Bush deserve credit for the Merida
Initiative. Better and more cooperative relations between our countries
are long overdue.
It is unfortunate, however, that neither the Mexican or Central
American legislatures, nor the U.S. Congress, nor representatives of
civil society, had a role in shaping the Merida Initiative. There was
no refinement through consultation. I first learned of it from the
press, as did other Members of Congress.
As we have come to expect from this administration, the White House
reached a secret agreement with foreign governments calling for
hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and then came to
Congress demanding a blank check.
I support the goals of the Merida Initiative, and this bill provides
a very generous downpayment on what I believe will be a far longer
commitment than the 3-year initiative proposed by the administration.
It will take longer than 1 year just to obligate and expend the $350
million for Mexico in this supplemental bill, and the President has
requested another $477 million for Mexico in fiscal year 2009.
In addition to appropriating the funds, most of which may be
obligated immediately, we require the Secretary of State to determine
and report that procedures are in place and actions are taken by the
Mexican and Central American governments to ensure that recipients of
our aid are not involved in corruption or human rights violations, and
that members of the military and police forces who commit violations
are brought to justice.
This is fundamental. For years we have trained Mexican and Central
American police forces, and it is well known that some of them have
ended up working for the drug cartels. It is common knowledge that
corruption is rampant within their law enforcement institutions--the
very entities we are about to support.
It is also beyond dispute that Mexican and Central American military
and police forces have a long history of human rights violations--
including arbitrary arrests, torture, rape and extra-judicial killings
for which they have rarely been held accountable. Examples of army and
police officers who have been prosecuted and punished for these heinous
crimes are few and far between. Mexican human rights defenders who
criticize the military for violating human rights fear for their lives.
Some, particularly the Mexican press, argue that conditioning our aid
on adherence to the rule of law is somehow an ``infringement of
sovereignty,'' ``subjugation'' or ``meddling,'' or that it ``sends the
wrong message.'' I strongly disagree.
Since when is it bad policy, or an infringement of anything, to
insist that American taxpayer dollars not be given to corrupt, abusive
police or military forces in a country whose justice system has serious
flaws and rarely punishes official misconduct? This is a partnership,
not a giveaway. As one who has criticized my own government for failing
to uphold U.S. and international law, as has occurred in Guantanamo,
Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, I believe it is our duty to insist on
respect for fundamental principles of justice. I am confident that the
Mexican and American people agree.
Mr. President, like Senators Dodd, Reid, Menendez and many others
here, both Democrats and Republicans, I have long urged closer
relations with Mexico. We have much in common, yet throughout our
history U.S. policy toward Mexico has been far more one of neglect than
of mutual respect and cooperation.
Whether it is trade and investment, immigration, the environment,
health,
[[Page 10175]]
science, cultural and academic exchange, human rights, drug
trafficking, weapons smuggling and other cross border crime and
violence--our contiguous countries are linked in numerous ways. We
should work to deepen and expand our relations.
The Merida Initiative is one approach, and while I and many others
would prefer that it encompassed broader forms of engagement, it is a
start. Most of the funds are for law enforcement hardware and software,
which is necessary but insufficient to support a sustainable strategy.
As we have learned from successive costly counterdrug strategies in the
Andean countries that have failed to effectively reduce the amount of
cocaine entering the United States, we need to know what the Merida
Initiative can reasonably expect to achieve, at what cost, over what
period of time.
Senator Gregg as ranking member, and I as chairman of the State and
Foreign Operations Subcommittee had to make difficult choices among
many competing demands within a limited budget. We had to find
additional funds to help disaster victims in Burma, Central Africa,
Bangladesh and elsewhere, whom the President's budget ignored. We had
to find additional funds for Iraqi refugees and for crucial
peacekeeping, security, and nonproliferation programs. We could not
have funded virtually any program at the level requested by the
President without causing disproportionate harm to others, and we
sought to avoid that.
Considering the amount we had to spend, the Merida Initiative
received strong, bipartisan support. Again, this is not simply a 3 year
program as the administration suggests. It is the beginning of a new
kind of relationship, and we need to start off prudently and with solid
footing.
That means the direct participation of the Congress and of civil
society and attention to legitimate concerns about human rights, about
monitoring and oversight, about rights of privacy, due process, and
accountability. How these issues are resolved is critical to future
funding for this program, and we need to work together to address them.
____________________
MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT OF 2007
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce
hate crimes legislation that would strengthen and add new categories to
current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is
unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the
floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our
country.
On Thursday evening, May 15, 2008, in Sacramento, CA, a 23-year-old
man was sitting in his car at a gas station when he was approached by
three men. According to police, one of the men asked him if he was gay
and he responded that he was. When the man then exited the car, he was
attacked by the three men as they yelled homophobic slurs. Micah
Jontomo Tasaki, 21, Gregory Lee Winfield, 20, and Robert Lee Denor, 19,
were arrested at the gas staion where the attack occurred in connection
with the assault. Luckily for the victim, he did not sustain injuries
serious enough to necessitate a hospital visit. A Sacramento police
officer investigating the crime has called it a ``gay bashing'' and a
hate crime.
I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens,
to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. Federal laws
intended to protect individuals from heinous and violent crimes
motivated by hate are woefully inadequate. This legislation would
better equip the Government to fulfill its most important obligation by
protecting new groups of people as well as better protecting citizens
already covered under deficient laws. I believe that by passing this
legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as
well.
____________________
SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, earlier this spring, I introduced
legislation to address the challenge of how to deal with greenhouse
gases. The bill is called the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Atmospheric
Removal Act, or the GEAR Act.
Members of this body have discussed various proposals to regulate the
output of greenhouse gases. Some advocate doing it through a cap-and-
trade approach. Others have advocated a carbon tax. Such proposals are
aimed at limiting future carbon output into the atmosphere. Many
proposals have been introduced and debated using this approach of
dealing with carbon output.
We want to protect our environment and we want a strong economy. The
way to have both is by thinking anew and acting anew. It is time to use
our untapped human potential and the American spirit to develop the
technologies we need.
The Senate will soon be debating climate legislation. I believe we
should identify solutions through imagination, innovation, and
invention, not through limits.
It is my hope and my goal that the GEAR Act will foster the kind of
solutions that we need to address the concerns about climate change.
Recently, there was a very thoughtful editorial which was printed in
``Wyoming Agriculture,'' which is published by the Wyoming Farm Bureau
Federation.
The editorial was written by Ken Hamilton. Ken is the executive vice
president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau. I believe he does a terrific job
of summing up the feelings of Wyoming people on the need to find
practical ``real'' solutions to climate change.
I recommend it to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
Ther being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
You Can't Have Your Cake And Eat It Too
(By Ken Hamilton, WyFB Executive Vice President)
One of the first little sayings you probably heard when you
were growing up was that you can't have your cake and eat it
too. Generally everyone will agree that this is self evident,
but that doesn't stop Americans (and probably people in other
countries) from always trying to have it both ways.
This is never more evident than the actions surrounding
global warming. We are continually being bombarded by
pronouncements about man caused global warming (it's hovering
around 4 degrees with a 25 mph breeze blowing as I write
this). When I was discussing this global warming issue with a
friend, he said what people need to do is stop arguing with
the activists over whether there is man caused global warming
and start asking them what their solutions are going to be.
The more I thought about it the more I realized the whole
global warming debate is absent any discussion of real
solutions. We hear vague pronouncements about a greenhouse
gas tax, but not much else. And none have enough details to
fully analyze what the impact will be on people. There are
numerous shows on television where people are talking about
reducing their ``carbon footprint'', but most of these
solutions revolve around still living the lifestyle you want
while feeling good about using a material someone has
pronounced as ``green.''
For instance, one of the new ``green'' materials for
flooring in houses now is bamboo. Why someone feels this is
greener than oak or pine is beyond me, but nevertheless
apparently it is. The interesting thing is that while
everyone is talking green, they are busy building a house
that's twice the square footage of a generation ago. Our
grandparents lived in a house where one or two rooms had heat
part of the time. In today's modern homes there is heat
running to every room, plus a television set in half of them,
a minimum two-car garage (heated of course) and appliances
that grandma couldn't even dream about. All of these, of
course have some ``green'' marketing gimmick attached to
them, so, you guessed it, people can live in even bigger
houses while feeling good about doing their part.
But if meaningful curbs in greenhouse gases must occur as
they profess, then there shouldn't be houses with two-car
garages. You don't find those sorts of things in third world
countries where the people's carbon footprint is less than
here. Dishwashers must go as well as washing machines,
dryers, and central heating. In third world countries where
they don't have such a big carbon footprint, health clubs are
not needed, nor are double ovens.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is in a panic over global
warming, should stop driving around in his Humvee. In fact,
to adequately address this issue, he should stop driving
period.
But we don't see any of this happening and probably won't
in the future. The people
[[Page 10176]]
worried about global warming are still driving to work every
day. They come home to heated and air conditioned homes, turn
on their 42-inch flat panel television while getting their
meal delivered by a college freshman in a fuel-efficient \3/
4\-ton four-wheel drive vehicle so they don't have to crank
up one of those double ovens and hear the latest news about
climate change. Recently a weather event caused a power
outage in Arnold's state and not once did I hear him say,
``thank goodness, now we can start to do something meaningful
about man caused global warming.''
Politicians and proponents of global warming only want to
personally do something about global warming if it doesn't
mean a cold house in the winter or a hot one in the summer.
Health clubs will still be needed because people won't walk
to work and will need to get some exercise somewhere. And
pine forests will grow old, die and burn while folks feel
good about their bamboo floors. Thinking all along that they
are getting their cake and eating it too.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO FRANK WOODRUFF BUCKLES
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the most distinguished
Americans living today is Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles. Born in Bethany,
MO, on February 1, 1901, 2 years before Orville and Wilbur Wright made
their historic first flight, Mr. Buckles, now 107, is the last living
U.S. World War I veteran. He is truly a national treasure: Of the 2
million soldiers the United States sent to France in World War I, he is
the lone survivor.
His life story is nothing short of amazing. In 1917, Mr. Buckles told
his Army recruiter he was 21 years old and wanted to go to war. He was
really just 16. Upon arrival in England, he convinced his superiors to
send him forward to France where he would serve as an ambulance driver,
carrying wounded allied troops to medical facilities.
When the war ended, Mr. Buckles was responsible for returning
prisoners of war to Germany. He separated from the Army in 1920 after
achieving the rank of corporal, but his service to the Nation continued
as a civilian in the Philippines, where he worked for a U.S. shipping
company. When the Japanese took Manila in 1942, Mr. Buckles was made a
prisoner of war for the next 39 months, until his subsequent rescue by
the 11th Airborne Division in 1945.
During his captivity, he developed chronic illnesses that still
afflict him today. But there was no surrender then and there is no
surrender today in Mr. Buckles.
Mr. Buckles remains witty and active. During a recent interview, he
was asked about the circumstances surrounding his questionable
enlistment into the Army. He replied with a chuckle, ``I didn't lie;
nobody calls me a liar . . . but I may have increased my age.'' I also
understand he does 50 sit ups and lifts weights daily. That is more
physical activity than most men my age and even younger!
Today, before Memorial Day, I ask you to join me in honoring Mr.
Buckles for all he has done for his country. The debt paid by Mr.
Buckles and his fellow soldiers on behalf of future generations must
never be forgotten. His life epitomizes patriotism and dedication to
our nation. His incredible individual achievements and sacrifices,
along with those of his fellow ``doughboys,'' deserve our ongoing
admiration and thanks.
____________________
REMEMBERING ELWOOD ``WOODY'' LECHAUSSE
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish today to honor the life and
service of Elwood Lechausse of Manchester, CT, who died on Saturday May
17, 2008. Mr. Lechausse, known to many as ``Woody,'' enlisted in the
U.S. Army in 1958, the day after his 18th birthday, and served with
distinction in the 101st Airborne Division in both Turkey and South
Vietnam.
Mr. Lechausse's service to his country did not end with his departure
from the military in 1965. Following his honorable discharge from the
Army, Mr. Lechausse dedicated himself to supporting his fellow
veterans. For over 35 years, Mr. Lechausse was a tireless advocate for
veterans issues, serving in leadership positions in more than two dozen
veterans organizations, including serving as a senior member of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Board of Trustees and the Secretary and
Treasurer of the Connecticut Veterans Coalition from 1988-2002 and the
Department of Connecticut Adjutant of the Disabled American Veterans.
Mr. Lechausse worked hard to educate his fellow Americans on the
importance of honoring our veterans and recognizing the challenges they
faced. Whether testifying before the U.S. Congress or speaking in the
local classroom, Mr. Lechausse carried himself with a vigor and passion
that spoke volumes of his dedication to advocating on behalf of his
fellow veterans.
In 2003, Mr. Lechausse was named as a Connecticut Treasure for his
work on behalf of Connecticut's veterans. In 2007, in recognition of
the many lives he touched throughout nearly four decades of service,
Mr. Lechausse was inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame.
Mr. Lechausse was a valuable friend of my office, and all of us in
Connecticut owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Lechausse for his
service to both his country and his fellow veterans. On behalf of the
Senate, I offer my most sincere condolences to Mr. Lechausse's wife,
Kathryn, his children James and Ralph, and all those who were touched
by his tremendous spirit. With Woody's passing, Connecticut and the
Nation's veterans have lost a powerful voice that will be sorely
missed.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LAUREL ZAKS
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor in the
Record of the Senate Laurel Zaks, an incredibly dedicated and
universally beloved and respected civil servant who died on Friday,
March 28, 2008. Laurel was a public health adviser at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA, with more than 14 years
international and domestic work experience as a nutritionist.
Laurel started her career in 1992 as a nutritionist in Bucharest,
Romania, with the Free Romania Foundation cross-training staff in three
orphanages with medical clinics in health and nutrition issues. She
then took a position as a community developer in Pop Wuj,
Quetzeltenango, Guatemala, teaching primary health prevention
strategies. She returned to the United States in 1996 where she
developed and communicated policy and legislative strategy on domestic
hunger for Congress and lobbied Congress on nutrition programs
involving welfare reform. While in Washington, she also served as a
pediatric dietitian with the Children's National Medical Center working
on initial and followup nutritional assessments of HIV/AIDS and
gastrointestinal disease patients.
In 1997, Laurel joined the Peace Corps volunteering in Ecuador, where
she used her training as a dietitian to work with the Ministry of
Health and indigenous organizations to develop training materials
promoting maternal and child health and prevention of infectious
diseases. Next Laurel moved to the city, Santa Domingo de Los
Colorados, to work at the Center for Malnourished Children and in local
communities where she served as the nutritionist/health educator
working in an interdisciplinary medical team. During the last 2\1/2\
years of her Peace Corps service, she was instrumental in helping to
design a new $400,000 Children's Center for Nutrition Recuperation,
which served an average of 40 families daily.
Laurel joined CDC in 2001, 1 week after finishing her Peace Corps
tour in Ecuador. Her enthusiasm for making a difference in global
health affected all who knew her. She worked in many areas of global
health work at CDC, including planning for development of sustainable
global public health management, planning for a global pandemic
influenza outbreak, and serving as a team member traveling to Botswana
in response to an outbreak of infant diarrhea and severe malnutrition.
In 2007, she was part of a team honored for rapidly assisting 20
countries around the world to apply for pandemic influenza preparedness
funds.
Laurel was an active member and leader in the Atlanta chapter of the
[[Page 10177]]
Returned Peace Corps Volunteers. She gave countless hours to charitable
organizations domestically and abroad, including the Manna Food Bank in
North Carolina and as a charter member of the Ecuadorian Rivers
Institute in Ecuador. She received various awards for her volunteer
work and was bestowed the North Carolina Governor's Award for
Outstanding Volunteer Service in 1994.
Just as she did with the Peace Corps, Laurel's work over 7 years at
CDC left a legacy of healthier people around the world. She inspired
her coworkers to make a difference in global health, and all who knew
her were struck by her compassion and the lasting contributions she
made to children living in poverty around the world.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HAROLD ``SHORTY'' DORN
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, Albert Einstein once said, ``It is
the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and
knowledge.'' I wish today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of an
Oregonian who devoted his career to that supreme art and, in doing so,
made a priceless contribution to the field of journalism.
Harold ``Shorty'' Dorn passed away in Reston, VA, last week at 83
years of age. Like countless others of his ``greatest generation,''
Shorty proudly wore the uniform of our country during World War II. He
entered the U.S. Marine Corps in 1943 and served in the Pacific until
the end of the war.
Upon returning home, Shorty earned his college degree and began
nearly four decades of service as a college professor. Generations of
Oregonians are fortunate because the vast majority of Shorty's career
was spent at two of my State's outstanding institutions of higher
learning--10 years at Eastern Oregon University in LaGrande and 23
years in the Department of Journalism at Oregon State University in
Corvallis.
Professor Dorn was admired and respected by his students for his
intelligence, his integrity, his warm humor, his trademark quips, and
for the fact that he genuinely cared about them and their future.
Shorty's commitment to his students did not end upon their graduation,
and many continued to call on him for advice and counsel as they moved
on in their careers.
Just as Shorty was devoted to his students, he was also devoted to
his family--to his wife Ethel and to his two daughters, Jenna and
Lorah. Upon retirement from Oregon State University, Shorty and Ethel
moved to Reston, VA, so he could be closer to his daughters, who were
both building distinguished careers of service. He also discovered that
one of the best parts of retirement was the time he had to be a
wonderful grandfather to his two grandsons, Jon and Ben.
Mr. President, it was once said that, ``In a completely rational
society, the best of us would be teachers and the rest of us would have
to settle for something less.'' Shorty Dorn was certainly one of the
best of us, and I extend my condolences to his family and
friends.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE HEARTLAND HONOR FLIGHT
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I honor veterans
from my home State who are taking part in the first Nebraska Heartland
Honor Flight to visit the National World War II Memorial.
The National World War II Memorial is a fitting tribute to those
remarkable Americans who served in the deadliest conflict in human
history. From the beaches of Normandy to the shores of Iwo Jima, these
veterans served with courage, honor, and selflessness. In addition to
their service, these same veterans returned home to reinvigorate the
United States, producing what is still the largest and most vibrant
economy in the world.
Soon after President Clinton authorized the American Battle Monuments
Commission to establish a World War II memorial, a comprehensive
national fundraising campaign began under the leadership of former
Senator Bob Dole, the national chairman and a World War II veteran from
Kansas. During this time, as Governor of the State of Nebraska, I
realized it was imperative to secure funding as soon as possible so
that a memorial could be built in time for our veterans to view it.
Therefore, on June 1, 1998, I presented a check to Senator Bob Dole in
the amount of $52,900 for every Nebraskan who served in World War II.
Subsequently, every State that donated money followed our guideline.
There are now close to 14,000 World War II veterans living in the
State of Nebraska. Unfortunately, nearly 2,100 of these brave
servicemembers pass away each year. Many of these veterans have not
been able to visit the memorial, which was dedicated by President
George W. Bush on May 29, 2004, as they confront increasing
difficulties with traveling due to their age. However, the Honor Flight
Program has proven to be a reliable and capable partner in helping
alleviate any obstacles veterans may face in traveling to Washington,
DC. The Honor Flight Program, started in 2005 by retired Air Force
captain and physician's assistant Earl Morse, now has 69 ``hubs'' in 30
States and has established a goal of transporting 12,000 World War II
veterans to view the memorial in 2008.
Today, I am proud to say that the Heartland Honor Flight, Nebraska's
own program, will conduct its inaugural flight, transporting more than
100 Nebraska World War II veterans to our Nation's Capital to visit the
National World War II Memorial. I am greatly appreciative to the
businesses and individuals who have contributed to this cause and am
especially grateful to Dan and Cara Whitney, who provided nearly all
the funding required for the cost of this initial flight.
This will be an emotional and reflective occasion for these veterans
who look upon their service with deserved pride and remember those who
died making the ultimate sacrifice for our country in the name of
freedom. This memorial was long overdue for those who served our Nation
in World War II, and I am confident it will become an enduring symbol
in remembering the determination and sacrifice of our country's
``greatest generation.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BRIGADIER GENERAL NEIL SMART
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to BG
Neil Smart, former battalion commander in the Battle of the Bulge in
World War II and Director of the Veterans Administration Regional
Office in Montgomery, AL. General Smart's service to this nation was
long and distinguished.
Smart was commissioned a second lieutenant in the ROTC department of
the University of Alabama in 1938. He left Active Duty as a lieutenant
colonel and continued to serve in the National Guard. After General
Smart completed his military service, he continued to serve the
Nation's veterans in his work with the Veterans' Administration. He led
the VA in Alabama in an exemplary manner from 1958 to 1974.
General Smart also loved to share stories of World War II. He felt
this was a legacy his generation should leave younger generations. He
really liked to tell the story about an unscheduled inspection he and
his battalion had to undergo during World War II. The inspectors were
GEN Dwight Eisenhower, GEN Omar Bradley, and British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill.
This 94-year-old was also a key fundraiser in the efforts to build a
memorial honoring the American effort in World War II. He was scheduled
to visit the World War II Memorial with an Honor Flight group from the
Prattville and Montgomery area of Alabama this past Saturday. My wife
and I were there at the memorial to meet this group of heroes. When the
group arrived, we were told the sad news that General Smart had died
just hours before their departure.
So, Mr. President it is my honor to pay tribute to this great
Alabamian and American. He served his State and Nation well.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 1:36 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by
[[Page 10178]]
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. 1464. An act to assist in the conservation of rare
felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial
resources for the conservation programs of nations within the
range of rare felid and rare canid populations and projects
of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of
rare felid and rare canid populations.
H.R. 2649. An act to make amendments to the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
H.R. 2744. An act to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 to clarify the eligibility requirements with respect
to airline flight crews.
H.R. 2790. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish the position of Director of Physician Assistant
Services within the office of the Under Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for Health.
H.R. 3681. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to advertise in
the national media to promote awareness of benefits under
laws administered by the Secretary.
H.R. 3889. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a
longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs
administered by the Secretary.
H.R. 5554. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
expand and improve health care services available to veterans
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for substance use
disorders, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5664. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least
once every six years the plans and specifications for
specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the
Secretary.
H.R. 5729. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam veterans
born with Spina Bifida, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6048. An act to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to provide for the protection of child custody
arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces
deployed in support of a contingency operation.
H.R. 6074. An act to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-
producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other
purposes.
H.R. 6081. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide benefits for military personnel, and for
other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 32. Concurrent resolution honoring the members
of the United States Air Force who were killed in the June
25, 1996, terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers United
States military housing compound near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1464. An act to assist in the conservation of rare
felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial
resources for the conservation programs of nations within the
range of rare felid and rare canid populations and projects
of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of
rare felid and rare canid populations; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
H.R. 2649. An act to make amendments to the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2744. An act to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 to clarify the eligibility requirements with respect
to airline flight crews; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 2790. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish the position of Director of Physician Assistant
Services within the office of the Under Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for Health; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 3681. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to advertise in
the national media to promote awareness of benefits under
laws administered by the Secretary; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 3889. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a
longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs
administered by the Secretary; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
H.R. 5554. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
expand and improve health care services available to veterans
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for substance use
disorders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 5664. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least
once every six years the plans and specifications for
specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the
Secretary; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 5729. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam veterans
born with Spina Bifida, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 6048. An act to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to provide for the protection of child custody
arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces
deployed in support of a contingency operation; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 32. Concurrent resolution honoring the members
of the United States Air Force who were killed in the June
25, 1996, terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers United
States military housing compound near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
S. 3036. A bill to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to
decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
S. 3044. A bill to provide energy price relief and hold oil
companies and other entities accountable for their actions
with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes.
The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:
H.R. 6074. An act to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-
producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other
purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-6321. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting a report on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General John F.
Sattler, United States Marine Corps, and his advancement to
the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6322. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting a report on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General David F.
Melcher, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade
of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-6323. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting a report on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General James M. Dubik,
United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of
lieutenant general on the retired list; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-6324. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting a report on
the approved retirement of Vice Admiral Paul E. Sullivan,
United States Navy, and his advancement to the grade of vice
admiral on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-6325. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, notification of the
payment-in-kind compensation that has been negotiated with
Germany for the return of U.S.-funded improvements at 30
small sites; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6326. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
transmitting the withdrawal of the Secretary's previous
certification of satisfactory service for a retired officer;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6327. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report on budgeting for the sustainment of
key military equipment for fiscal year 2009; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-6328. A communication from the Associate Director,
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Final Rule Amending the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations
to Add Two New Requirements Designed to Enhance the
Collection of Statistics Related to Importations and
Exportations of Rough Diamonds'' (RIN1505-AB95) received on
May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6329. A communication from the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Definition of Eligible
[[Page 10179]]
Portfolio Company under the Investment Company Act''
(RIN3235-AJ31) received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6330. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Skowhegan, ME''
((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 07-ANE-94)) received on May 20,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6331. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Williamsport, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 05-AEA-19)) received on May 20,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6332. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewistown, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-14)) received on May 20,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6333. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lexington, OK''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 08-ASW-1)) received on May 20,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6334. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Cameron Balloons Ltd. Models AX5-
42, AX5-42 BOLT, AX6-56, AX6-56A, AX6-56Z, AX6-56 BOLT, AX7-
65, AX7-65Z, AX7-65 BOLT, AX7-77, AX7-77A, AX7-77Z, AX7-77
BOLT, AX8-90 (S.1), AX8-90 (S.2), AX8-105 (S.1), AX8-105
(S.2), AX9-120 (S.1), AX9-120 (S.2), AX9-140, AX10-160 (S.1),
AX10-160 (S.2), AX10-180 (S.1), AX10-180 (S.2), AX210, AX11-
225, and AX11-250 Balloons'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2008-
CE-008)) received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6335. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-
8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311,
and DHC-8-315 Airplanes, and Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-233)) received
on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6336. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; EMBRAER Model EMB-120, -120ER, -
120FC, -120QC, and -120RT Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket
No. 2007-NM-171)) received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6337. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-172)) received
on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6338. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-111))
received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6339. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-
187)) received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6340. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-191))
received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6341. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-
8C1, -8C5, -8C5B1, -8E5, -8E5A1, and CF34-10E Series Turbofan
Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-36)) received on
May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6342. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Inseason Closure of the Commercial Fishery for Deep Water
Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico for the 2008 Fishing Year''
(RIN0648-XG27) received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6343. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Inseason Closure of the Commercial Fishery for Tilefishes
in the Gulf of Mexico for the 2008 Fishing Year'' (RIN0648-
XG71) received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6344. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Closure of Tilefish Permit Category B to Directed Tilefish
Fishing'' (RIN0648-XF91) received on May 20, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6345. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Ocean Perch by Vessels in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Eastern Aleutian
District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area'' (RIN0648-XH62) received on May 20, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6346. A communication from the Director of Civil Works,
Department of the Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources'' (RIN0710-AA55) received on May
20, 2008; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6347. A communication from the Social Security
Regulations Officer, Social Security Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendments to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
Program'' (RIN0960-AF89) received on May 20, 2008; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-6348. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
extension of waiver authority for Turkmenistan; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-6349. A communication from the Acting Assistant Legal
Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C.
112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background
statements of international agreements, other than treaties
(List 2008-62--2008-68); to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-6350. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a
proposed agreement for the export of defense articles to the
Republic of Korea for the development of the A-50 Aircraft;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6351. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a
proposed license for the export of revolvers being sold for
end use by the Ministry of the Interior of Thailand; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6352. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to U.S.
contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated
agencies during fiscal years 2006 and 2007; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
EC-6353. A communication from the Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, Government Accountability Office,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
Office's opinion on the financial statements of the
Congressional Award Foundation; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6354. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to the use of student loan repayments by Federal
agencies during fiscal year 2007; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6355. A communication from the White House Liaison,
Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of the designation of an acting officer for the
position of U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-6356. A communication from the White House Liaison,
Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of the designation of an acting officer for the
position of U.S. Marshal for the Western District of
Michigan, received on May 20, 2008; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-6357. A communication from the National Chairman, Naval
Sea Cadet Corps, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Audit and
Annual Report of Corps for fiscal year 2007; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
[[Page 10180]]
EC-6358. A communication from the Chair of the Board of
Directors, Office of Compliance, transmitting, pursuant to
Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 (CAA), 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(3), a general notice of proposed
rulemaking as originally transmitted to the President pro
tempore of the Senate on March 14, 2008, and printed in the
Record on March 31, 2008; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-348. A resolution adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County of the State of Nebraska
expressing its opposition to any cutback of the National
Institute of Correction's budget; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
POM-349. A resolution adopted by the Bakersfield City
Council of the State of California expressing the Council's
support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
POM-350. A resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Taft of the State of California expressing its
support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
POM-351. A joint resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Maine urging Congress to stop
gasoline price manipulation and to close the Enron loophole;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Joint Resolution
Whereas, energy prices are reaching an all-time high in the
United States and its citizens are especially hard hit in the
State of Maine, as our cold winters are long and many of our
citizens use petroleum products to heat their homes; and
Whereas, diesel fuel prices for Maine truckers are causing
severe economic hardship for this hardworking industry and
gasoline fuel prices continue to rise, causing financial
hardship to all Maine citizens; and
Whereas, it is apparent to the United States Congress and
the citizens of Maine that some of the serious factors
causing the high prices are excessive trading, speculation
and, allegedly, manipulation of the commodities market; and
Whereas, the United States Congress passed, in December
2000, at the behest of the American energy company Enron,
what is known as ``the Enron Loophole'' as part of the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of
P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, and this loophole allows
electronic exchanges set up for large traders to operate
without any federal oversight; and
Whereas, one of the fundamental purposes of futures
contracts is to provide price discovery, and those selling or
buying commodities in the spot market rely on futures prices
to judge amounts to charge or pay for a commodity; and
Whereas, since the creation of the futures markets in the
agricultural context decades ago, it has been widely
understood that, unless properly regulated, the markets may
distort the economic fundamental of price discovery through
excessive speculation, fraud or manipulation, and the federal
Commodity Exchange Act has long been praised as preventing
those economic abuses; and
Whereas, a recent bipartisan United States Senate report,
``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas
Prices: The Need to Put the Cop Back on the Beat,'' stated
that as much as 25% of the cost of a barrel of crude oil may
be due to the cost of speculation and profiteering taking
place in these unregulated commodities markets; and
Whereas, this speculation and profiteering unfairly causes
many Maine citizens to pay excessive fuel and gas prices:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That We, your Memorialists, on behalf of the
people we represent, respectfully and strongly urge and
request that the United States Congress rein in this
excessive energy commodities speculation and enact meaningful
reforms of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission,
including closing ``the Enron Loophole''; and be it further
Resolved, That suitable copies of this resolution, duly
authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to
President of the United States Senate and to the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, and to each
Member of the Maine Congressional Delegation.
____
POM-352. A resolution adopted by the State Board of
Education of the State of Mississippi urging Congress to
support the passage of the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Resolution
Whereas, in December 2000, the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act, a Federal act, was signed
into law; and
Whereas, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act provides federal funds to school districts
with national forest lands located within the school
districts boundaries; and
Whereas, 36 school districts have substantial tracts of
land in public ownership which can neither be developed nor
taxed to generate revenue from economic activity or taxation;
and
Whereas, these school districts have United States National
Forests within its boundaries and have received critical
funds for schools based on revenues generated from these
forests; and
Whereas, the payments provided to these school districts
have been a consistent and necessary source of funding for
the schools, teachers and students; and
Whereas, in December 2007, the United States Congress
removed the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act from the Energy Legislation
to which it was attached. This legislation was subsequently
passed and signed into law without reauthorization for the
Secure Rural and Community Self-Determination Act; and
Whereas, the funding provided through the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act will
significantly contribute to the local economy of these school
districts by providing the necessary funds for schools and
roads, which is vital for sustained economic development; and
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; and
Whereas, these school districts depend on the funding from
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
and unless the funding is secured through legislation as
deemed appropriate by the Mississippi congressional
delegation, these school districts will lose critical funding
that it has received for decades: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the state board of education of the state of
Mississippi, That we, the members of the State Board of
Education of the State of Mississippi, respectfully request
that the United States Congress pass the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act so that these
Mississippi school districts may continue to adequately
maintain schools and sustain economic development in the
state. Be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the State Board of
Education is directed to transmit copies of this resolution
to President George W. Bush, the Secretary of the United
States Senate, the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives, the Governor of the State of Mississippi,
each member of the, Mississippi congressional delegation, the
Executive Director of the National Association of State
Boards of Education, and that copies be made available to
members of the Capitol Press Corps.
____
POM-353. A resolution adopted by the Georgia State Senate
urging Congress to withdraw the U.S. from the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other
agreement that seeks the economic merger of the U.S. with any
other country; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Senate Resolution No. 827
Whereas, President George W. Bush announced the formation
of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
with the nations of Mexico and Canada on March 23, 2005; and
Whereas, at a news conference on the same day, President
Bush said: ``So that the vision that you asked about in your
question as to what kind of union might there be, I see one
based upon free trade, that would then entail commitment to
markets and democracy, transparency, rule of law''; and
Whereas, the gradual evolution of a North American
partnership into some ``kind of union'' or economic merger;
of the United States, Mexico, and Canada would be a direct
threat to the Constitution and national independence of the
United States and would imply an eventual end to national
borders within North America; and
Whereas, on March 31, 2006, President Bush at Cancun,
Mexico, celebrated the fIrst anniversary of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership, confirmed by a White House news
release on that same date; and
Whereas, this trilateral partnership to develop any kind of
North American merger has never been presented to Congress as
an agreement or treaty and has had virtually no congressional
oversight; and
Whereas, state and local governments throughout the United
States would be negatively impacted by the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America process, such as the
``open borders'' vision of the Security and Prosperity
Partnership, eminent domain takings of private property along
planned superhighways, and increased law enforcement problems
along those superhighways: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate that the members of this body urge
the United States Congress, especially the congressional
delegation from Georgia, to use all its efforts, energies,
and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further
participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of
North America and any similar bilateral or multilateral
activity, however named, that seeks to advance, authorize, or
fund or in any way promote the creation of any structure or
relationship to accomplish any form of North American
integration or merger. Be it further
[[Page 10181]]
Resolved that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and
directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution
to Vice President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, and each member of the
Georgia congressional delegation.
____
POM-354. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the State of
Massachusetts urging Congress to encourage Turkey to respect
the religious rights of all people; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Resolution
Whereas, the Theological School of Halki, located on the
Island of Heybeliada in the Republic of Turkey, was preceded
by the Monastery of the Trinity and was characterized as a
stadium of wisdom because of its library and those drawn to
study on its premises; and
Whereas, the Monastery was rebuilt and rededicated on
September 23, 1844, as an Orthodox School of theology, which
nurtured educators and scholars from around the world for 127
years and served the needs of the international academic
community; and
Whereas, the Theological School of Halki, labeled as a
seminary, was closed in 1971 by turkish authorities pursuant
to a law requiring higher education and military training to
be controlled by the Turkish State; and
Whereas, Turkish law further requires that the ecumenical
patriarch of the Orthodox Church and all clergy, faculty and
students of the Theological School of Halki be citizens of
turkey, a requirement that greatly obstructs the prosperity
of religious institutions; and
Whereas, before its closure, the Theological School of
Halki was the only educational institution for Orthodox
Christian leadership in Turkey; and
Whereas, strict limitations have been imposed by the
turkish government that restrict access to the school's
library, a collection of some of the rarest and most precious
works in the world; and
Whereas, because of these limitations, people are prevented
from conducting meaningful scholarly research; and
Whereas, the ecumenical patriarchate in Turkey, where the
canonical structure of the Christian Orthodox Church was
established, is the spiritual center for more than
300,000,000 Orthodox Christians worldwide, including
approximately 5,000,000 Orthodox Christians in the United
States and 150,000 Orthodox Christians in the commonwealth;
and
Whereas, the closure of the Theological School of Halki has
adversely impacted the ecumenical patriarchate's ability to
educate its clergy and, ultimately, to select its next
ecumenical patriarch; and
Whereas,, the closure has come to symbolize repression of
religious freedom for all faiths in Turkey; and
Whereas, freedom of religion has long been recognized as a
right which has contributed significantly to the
establishment and growth of the citizens of the commonwealth
and is central to the ideals of all people: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Massachusetts Senate hereby memorializes
the President of the United States, the Congress of the
United States and the United States Department of State to
take all actions necessary to encourage the Government of
Turkey to adopt and uphold international standards for the
protection of human rights, to reopen the Theological School
of Halki in order to continue religious training, to
eliminate all forms of discrimination in accordance with the
ideals associated with the European Union, its member states
and all liberal democracies, particularly those based on race
and religion, and to respect the human rights and property of
the ecumenical patriarchate by safeguarding religious freedom
for all; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted
forthwith by the clerk of the Senate to the President of the
United States, the Secretary of State of the United States
and the Presiding Officer of each branch of Congress and to
the members thereof from the commonwealth.
____
POM-355. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Louisiana urging Congress to
take such actions as are necessary to create a national
catastrophe fund; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
House Resolution No. 30
Whereas, the hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 were
startling reminders of both the human and economic
devastation that hurricanes, flooding, and other natural
disasters can cause; and
Whereas, creation of a federal catastrophe fund is a
comprehensive, integrated approach to help better prepare and
protect the nation from natural catastrophes, such as
hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, snowstorms, and
earthquakes; and
Whereas, the current system of responses to catastrophes
leaves many people and businesses at risk of being unable to
replace what they lost, wastes tax dollars, raises insurance
premiums, and leads to shortages of insurance needed to
sustain our economy; and
Whereas, creation of a federal catastrophe fund would help
stabilize insurance markets following a catastrophe and help
steady insurance costs for consumers while making it possible
for private insurance to be written in catastrophe-prone
areas; and
Whereas, a portion of the premiums collected by insurance
companies could be deposited into such a fund which could be
administered by the United States Treasury and grow tax free;
and
Whereas, a portion of the interest earnings of the fund
could be dedicated to emergency responder efforts and public
education and mitigation programs; and
Whereas, the federal catastrophe fund would operate as a
``backstop'' and could only be accessed when private insurers
and state catastrophe funds have paid losses in excess of a
defined threshold; and
Whereas, utilizing the capacity of the federal government
would help smooth out fluctuations which consumers currently
experience in insurance prices and availability because of
exposure to large catastrophic losses and would provide
better protection at a lower price; and
Whereas, when there is a gap between the insurance
protection consumers buy and the damage caused by a major
catastrophe, taxpayers across the country pay much of the
difference, as congressional appropriations of billions of
dollars for the after-the-fact disaster relief in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated; and
Whereas, on November 8, 2007, the United States House of
Representatives passed the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007
(H.R. 3355) that would help ensure that individuals and
communities destroyed by natural catastrophes have the
resources necessary to repair, rebuild, and recover in the
aftermath of massive hurricanes, earthquakes, or other
natural events; and
Whereas, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007 was sponsored
by Florida Representatives Ron Klein, Tim Mahoney, and Ginny
Brown-Waite and nearly four dozen cosponsors from around the
country including then Congressman Bobby Jindal, now governor
of the state of Louisiana; and
Whereas, the Senate should pass similar legislation that
will integrate the approach of H.R. 3355 with H.R. 91, which
includes the Consumer Hurricane and Earthquake Loss
Protection Fund and earlier legislative initiatives that will
include the Consumer HELP Fund. Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United
States Congress to take such actions as are necessary to
create a national catastrophe fund; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the Congress of the United States of
America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional
delegation.
____
POM-356. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of Nebraska urging Congress to continue its efforts to
account for all of the missing people from the Vietnam War;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Legislative Resolution No. 376
Whereas, the official United States military dates for the
Vietnam War are August 5, 1964, to January 27, 1973; and
Whereas, over 3,403,000 people served in the United States
military in Southeast Asia; and
Whereas, over 2,594,000 people served in the United States
military in South Vietnam; and
Whereas, over 58,209 people from the United States died as
a result of the war in Southeast Asia and Vietnam from
November 1, 1955, the commencement of the military Assistance
Advisory Group, to May 15, 1975, when the last United States
military member left Southeast Asia; and
Whereas, over 396 Nebraskans died as a result of the
Vietnam War; and
Whereas, over 94 Omaha residents died as a result of the
Vietnam War, including the following:
Name, Service, Date of Death or Date Declared Dead
Adolf, Larry Eugene, USMC, May 9, 1968
Anderson, Warren Charles, ARMY, August, 15, 1970
Backhaus, Steven Eugene, USMC, December 21, 1969
Bailey, Allen Charles, USMC, March 4, 1966
Bailey, Byrle Bennett, USMC, May 25, 1969
Barney, Terence Edward, USMC, March 17, 1969
Bazar, Paul Thomas, USMC, April 21, 1969
Becker, Michael Paul, USMC, June 7, 1968
Bigley, Richard Ray, USMC, November 22, 1965
Biscamp, Marvin Lynn, ARMY, April 12, 1972
Bosiljevac, Michael Joseph, USAF, Unknown date, 1978
Bragg, Paul Joseph, USMC, July 15, 1969
Buckles, Donald Ray, ARMY, January 28, 1968
Bull, Kenneth R., ARMY, April 17, 1969
Caldwell, Larry Gail, ARMY, May 9, 1968
Cole, Muril Steven, USMC, October 1, 1969
Crayne, Kenneth Eugene, ARMY, December 1, 1970
Cunningham, Richard Ira, ARMY, April 27, 1969
[[Page 10182]]
Davis, John Clinton, ARMY, April 28, 1969
Doolittle, Jon Hiliare, ARMY, May 6, 1970
Farrell, Timothy Charles, ARMY, February 11, 1970
Flournoy, James Kaiser, USMC, March 31, 1968
Foley, James Williams, ARMY, January 26, 1968
Fous, James William, ARMY, May 14, 1968
Garcia, Jerry Frank, USMC, April 17, 1968
Gerry, Ronald Lee, ARMY, January 5, 1966
Goc, Paul Stephen Jr., ARMY, June 14, 1969
Griffin, Gerald Charles, NAVY, October 6, 1962
Gronborg, Martin Wayne Jr., ARMY, September 4, 1971
Haakenson, Robert W. Jr., NAVY, October 24, 1972
Hansen, Robert Greg, ARMY, August 7, 1970
Hiley, Thomas Charles, ARMY, January 31, 1968
Hunter, Henry David, ARMY, July 8, 1969
Iler, Kenneth Marvin, USMC, May 29, 1968
Jackson, Eddie Lee Jr., ARMY, November 4, 1968
Johnson, Gary Lee, ARMY, June 18, 1971
Johnson, Lane Carston, ARMY, November 11, 1968
Kavulak, John Henry, USMC, September 21, 1967
Keith, Miguel, USMC, May 8, 1970
Keller, Kenneth Lavern, ARMY, February 11, 1970
Kelley, Harvey Paul, ARMY, November 20, 1969
Kier, Larry Gene, ARMY, September 12, 1978
Klabunde, Arthur John Jr., USMC, January 25, 1968
Klabunde, John Paul, USMC, September 6, 1967
Kocanda, Jerry Joseph III, ARMY, May 21, 1969
Konwinski, Ronald Eugene, USMC, February 6, 1968
Kotrc, James Carl, ARMY, July 29, 1969
Kudlacek, Edwin Allen, ARMY, September 28, 1971
Laird, James Alan, ARMY, October 31, 1970
Lambooy, John Patrick, ARMY, September 19, 1969
Lamere, Anthony John, ARMY, July 1, 1971
Leighton, Earl Laroy, NAVY, January 17, 1969
Luedke, William, ARMY, October 28, 1968
Marchand, Wayne Ellsworth, ARMY, April 8, 1962
Marsh, Alan Richard, ARMY, June 2, 1967
Maxwell, Samuel Chapman, USAF, June 21, 1978
McAllister, Cameron Trent, ARMY, September 7, 1969
Mickna, John Ronald, ARMY, February 23, 1967
Moore, Daniel Eugene Jr., NAVY, February 22, 1967
Morrison, James Anton, ARMY, September 12, 1967
Mueller, Steven Wayne, USMC, December 22, 1967
Murphy, John Patrick, ARMY, July 22, 1968
Nachtigall, David Joseph, ARMY, February 23, 1970
Oonk, Lester Eugene, USAF, August 13, 1970
Perrin, Richard Thomas, ARMY, June 27, 1966
Pinegar, William Dennis, ARMY, October 6, 1965
Poese, Nigel Frederick, ARMY, March 20, 1969
Radil, Ronald Ludwig, ARMY, October 14, 1967
Ross, Milton Alan, ARMY, February 9, 1969
Salyards, Patrick John, USMC, December 9, 1966
Sanders, Mack Royal, ARMY, May 12, 1966
Sandstedt, Daniel Joseph, ARMY, June 19, 1967
Schmidt, Gary Russell, ARMY, September 25, 1967
Shelton, Craig Stephen, USMC, January 25, 1967
Shrader, Harold William, ARMY, August 9, 1965
Shuey, Glenn Colin, USMC, December 20, 1969
Skavaril, Thomas Joseph, ARMY, January 5, 1968
Smith, Michael Francis, ARMY, April 28, 1968
Smith, Paul Richard, ARMY, July 6, 1963
Smith, Thomas Leroy, ARMY, September 11, 1969
Sobolik, Karl David, USAF, November 26, 1966
Solomon, Wilfred L. Sr., ARMY, February 8, 1968
Spencer, Frank III, ARMY, January 23, 1970
Stolinski, James Francis, ARMY, March 26, 1968
Straus, Allen Arthur, ARMY, May 6, 1968
Utts, William Warner, ARMY, March 19, 1969
Waite, Donald Steven, ARMY, February 9, 1968
Wigton, Philip Gregory, USMC, May 9, 1968
Wilkinson, Harland Lyle, ARMY, September 26, 1969
Wilson, Michael Joseph, USMC, May 12, 1967
Wojtkiewicz, Ronald Joseph, ARMY, April 10, 1968
Wolf, Jack Morse, ARMY, March 28, 1968
Zabrowski, Louis, ARMY, December 27, 1969
Ziehe, Gerald Dean, USAF, October 21, 1968; and
Whereas, at least 1,763 United States military service
members serving in Southeast Asia remain unaccounted for,
including the following 19 from Nebraska:
Name, Service, Hometown, Date of Incident
Biber, Gerald Mack, ARMY, Benkelman, April 22, 1961
Booze, Delmar George, USMC, Papillion, January 24, 1966
Brennan, Herbert Owen, USAF, O'Neill, November 26, 1967
Brenning, Richard David, NAVY, Lincoln, July 26, 1969
Confer, Michael Steele, NAVY, McCook, October 10, 1966
Cordova, Robert James, NAVY, Boys Town, January 27, 1968
Grella, Donald Carroll, ARMY, Laurel, December 28, 1965
Kahler, Harold, USAF, Lincoln, June 14, 1969
Klingner, Michael Lee, USAF, McCook, April 6, 1970
Magers, Paul Gerald, ARMY, Sidney, June 1, 1971
Ogden, Howard Jr., USMC, Omaha, October 18, 1967
Robinson, Larry Warren, USMC, Randolph, January 5, 1970
Scheurich, Thomas Edwin, NAVY, Norfolk, March 1, 1968
Smiley, Stanley Kutz, NAVY, Sidney, July 20, 1969
Sprick, Doyle, USMC, Fort Calhoun, January 24, 1966
Stafford, Ronald Dean, USAF, Oxford, November 21, 1972
Stark, Willie E., ARMY, Omaha, December 2, 1966
Thomas. Daniel W., USAF, Danbury, July 6, 1971
Zich, Larry Alfred, ARMY, Lincoln, April 3, 1972; and
Whereas, at least 150,332 of the United States military
service members were wounded during their service in
Southeast Asia; and
Whereas, countless numbers returned home with physical and
psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), that were not treated; and
Whereas, countless numbers remain homeless and in despair:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the members of the one hundredth legislature
of Nebraska, second session:
1. That the Legislature urges the President of the United
States and the United States Congress to continue efforts to
account for all of the missing people from the Vietnam War,
return any remains to their families, and continue to improve
efforts to aid homeless, drug-dependent, and wounded
veterans, including those afflicted with post-traumatic
stress disorder.
2. That the Legislature acknowledges that, in the past, a
less than grateful attitude was shown towards Vietnam
Veterans and now belatedly recognizes their service,
sacrifice, and suffering.
3. That the Legislature hereby commemorates the thirty-
fifth anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War and the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the healing Vietnam Veterans
Memorial in Washington, DC, by extending to all those who
served in Southeast Asia and in Vietnam a long overdue,
``Welcome Home, Vietnam Veteran, Welcome Home!''.
4. That the Clerk of the Legislature send a copy of this
resolution to the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and to the United
States Congressional delegation representing the State of
Nebraska.
____________________
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 Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 3045. A bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain
Arm National Forest Heritage Area in the State of Alaska, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coleman,
Mr. Specter, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 3046. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to create a new conditional approval system for
drugs, biological products, and devices that is responsive to
the needs of seriously ill patients, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Obama (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Sanders, and Mr. Brown)):
S. 3047. A bill to provide for the coordination of the
Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education initiatives; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BROWN:
S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution recognizing the efforts of
the Ohio Department of Mental
[[Page 10183]]
Health and the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction
Services to address the stigma associated with mental health
and substance use disorders; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mrs. DOLE:
S. Res. 572. A resolution calling upon the Court of Appeal
for the Second Appellate District of California to uphold the
fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the
upbringing and education of their children; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Ensign,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Coleman, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. Res. 573. A resolution recognizing Cuba Solidarity Day
and the struggle of the Cuban people as they continue to
fight for freedom; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton (for herself and Mrs.
Murray)):
S. Con. Res. 83. A concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of National Better Hearing and Speech Month;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 11
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 11, a bill to provide
liability protection to volunteer pilot nonprofit organizations that
fly for public benefit and to the pilots and staff of such nonprofit
organizations, and for other purposes.
S. 38
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 38, a bill to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a program for
the provision of readjustment and mental health services to veterans
who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom,
and for other purposes.
S. 755
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 755, a bill to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require States to provide
diabetes screening tests under the Medicaid program for adult enrollees
with diabetes risk factors, to ensure that States offer a comprehensive
package of benefits under that program for individuals with diabetes,
and for other purposes.
S. 777
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) 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. 1108
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1108, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide a special enrollment period
for individuals who qualify for an income-related subsidy under the
Medicare prescription drug program and to provide funding for the
conduct of outreach and education with respect to the premium and cost-
sharing subsidies under such program, and for other purposes.
S. 1210
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1210, a bill to
extend the grant program for drug-endangered children.
S. 1233
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1233, a bill to
provide and enhance intervention, rehabilitative treatment, and
services to veterans with traumatic brain injury, and for other
purposes.
S. 1259
At the request of Mr. Casey, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1259, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide
assistance for developing countries to promote quality basic education
and to establish the achievement of universal basic education in all
developing countries as an objective of United States foreign
assistance policy, and for other purposes.
S. 1384
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1384, a bill to
amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal authority for adjustments
to per diem payments to homeless veterans service centers for receipt
of other sources of income, to extend authorities for certain programs
to benefit homeless veterans, and for other purposes.
S. 1951
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1951, a bill to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure that individuals
eligible for medical assistance under the Medicaid program continue to
have access to prescription drugs, and for other purposes.
S. 1954
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1954, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to
pharmacies under part D.
S. 2063
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2063, a bill to establish a
Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the
economic security of the United States, and to expand future prosperity
and growth for all Americans.
S. 2161
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2161, a bill
to ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by
making the antitrust laws apply to negotiations between groups of
independent pharmacies and health plans and health insurance issuers
(including health plans under parts C and D of the Medicare Program) in
the same manner as such laws apply to protected activities under the
National Labor Relations Act.
S. 2303
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2303, a bill to amend section
435(o) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding the definition of
economic hardship.
S. 2369
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Barrasso) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2369, a bill to amend
title 35, United States Code, to provide that certain tax planning
inventions are not patentable, and for other purposes.
S. 2408
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2408, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to require physician utilization of
the Medicare electronic prescription drug program.
S. 2504
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2504, a bill to amend title 36, United States
Code, to grant a Federal charter to the Military Officers Association
of America, and for other purposes.
S. 2511
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2511, a bill to amend the
grant program for law enforcement armor vests to provide for a waiver
of or reduction in the matching funds requirement in the case of fiscal
hardship.
S. 2565
At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2565, a bill to establish
an awards mechanism to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of
duty by Federal law enforcement officers.
[[Page 10184]]
S. 2619
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2619, a bill to protect innocent
Americans from violent crime in national parks.
S. 2666
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2666, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage investment in affordable
housing, and for other purposes.
S. 2668
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. Rockefeller) were added as cosponsors of S. 2668, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from listed
property under section 280F.
S. 2766
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator from New York (Mr.
Schumer) were added as cosponsors of S. 2766, a bill to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to address certain discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel.
S. 2827
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2827, a bill to repeal a
requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of
alternative fuels.
S. 2828
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2828, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins commemorating the
100th anniversary of the establishment of Glacier National Park, and
for other purposes.
S. 2844
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2844, a bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to modify provisions
relating to beach monitoring, and for other purposes.
S. 2934
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2934, a bill to
amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide a plot allowance for spouses and children of certain
veterans who are buried in State cemeteries.
S. 3040
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3040, a bill to
amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce the exposure of
children, workers, and consumers to toxic chemical substances.
S. RES. 569
At the request of Mr. Inouye, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Res. 569, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the
earthquake that struck Sichuan Province of the People's Republic of
China on May 12, 2008.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 3045. A bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Forest Heritage Area in the State of Alaska, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Forest Heritage Area would be the first Heritage Area in
Alaska, and one of a few Heritage Areas in the West. Our proposal
encompasses the wide mountainous corridor that was the major gateway to
pioneer settlement of the State, extending from Seward through the
Kenai Mountains to the upper Turnagain Arm. Here mountain trails
developed by indigenous First Alaskans became prospectors' trails and,
eventually, the roads and railroad used by the pioneers who settled the
last frontier of the United States. Transportation, resource
development and settlement in this rugged, often-treacherous landscape
provide a powerful reminder of the fortitude and resourcefulness of the
pioneers of America's Last Frontier.
Historic communities that were developed around mining and early
transportation routes have preserved much of their original character.
A visit to the Hope Townsite is a visit to a living community that
still resembles the gold rush town that it was before the rush to the
Klondike. The City of Whittier provides a glimpse of our Nation's
intense effort to develop an ice-free port to supply troops who were
defending our boundaries in Alaska during World War II. As in the early
days, all the signs of human activity in the corridor are dwarfed by
the sweeping landscapes of the region, by the magnificence of the
mountains, glaciers and tidal fjords and the dominance and power of
nature. Turnagain Arm, once a critical transportation link, has one of
the world's greatest tidal ranges.
This Heritage Area proposal, truly a grass roots product, began in
1997 when the Kenai Peninsula Historical Association asked a group of
local community leaders to reach out and tell people about Heritage
Areas. They were successful in garnering support from communities
throughout the corridor. These local folks have extensive knowledge of
the resources; they are personally acquainted with the area; they
understand the ruggedness and the beauty of the land, and certainly
appreciate the potential economic value this designation would bring to
the area.
In 2000 these community leaders organized the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area Corridor Communities Association
as a non-profit organization with a board of directors made up of
corridor community representatives. Later a congressionally designated
grant made it possible for the new non-profit to serve as a local
coordinating entity and prove its ability to plan and accomplish
projects consistent with Heritage Area purposes. Through their
management of the grant, historic structures were preserved, a small
museum has opened, parks and pavilions with historic interpretation
have been constructed, oral histories have been collected from old-
timers and recorded, and an excellent book on corridor history has been
published.
Since the corridor is within the western part of the Chugach National
Forest, the Association has asked to put this Heritage Area under the
Secretary of Agriculture. The bill provides for coordination with the
Secretaries of Interior and includes the same components, structure and
national recognition as Heritage Areas under the Secretary of Interior.
Similar components assure that the Heritage Area will not impact
private property rights or public land management. A Memorandum of
Understanding between the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior would
establish coordination at the Secretarial level. Passage of this bill
will be an excellent way to commemorate the recent centennial of the
Chugach National Forest.
I am proud to lend my support to this grassroots effort by
introducing legislation today to designate the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm in Alaska as our most northern and western National
Heritage Area, the first National Heritage Area in Alaska and the first
National Forest Heritage Area to be assisted by the U.S. Forest
Service.
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. 3045
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 ``Kenai Mountains-Turnagain
Arm National Forest Heritage Area Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
[[Page 10185]]
(1) the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm transportation
corridor--
(A) is a major gateway to Alaska;
(B) includes a range of transportation routes used by--
(i) indigenous people; and
(ii) the pioneers that settled the last frontier of the
United States;
(C) is located in the heart of the Chugach National Forest,
which was established by presidential proclamation on July
23, 1907, by Theodore Roosevelt; and
(D) includes a historically significant segment of the
Iditarod Trail connecting Seward and Nome, which was--
(i) scouted by the Alaska Road Commission in 1908; and
(ii) designated as the Iditarod National Historic Trail in
1978;
(2) the cultural landscape formed by indigenous people and
by settlement, transportation, and modern resource
development in the rugged and often treacherous natural
setting of the transportation corridor provides a powerful
testimony to the human fortitude, perseverance, and
resourcefulness of the people who--
(A) settled the frontier; and
(B) represent the proudest heritage of the United States;
(3) the natural history and scenic splendor of the
transportation corridor are equally outstanding;
(4) the transportation corridor includes vistas of the
power of nature, such as evidence of earthquake subsidence,
recent avalanches, retreating glaciers, and tidal action
along Turnagain Arm, which has the second greatest tidal
range in the world;
(5) there is a national interest in recognizing,
preserving, promoting, and interpreting the resources of the
transportation corridor;
(6) the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm region is--
(A) geographically and culturally cohesive; and
(B) defined by a corridor of historic routes, trails,
water, railroads, and roadways through a distinct landscape
of mountains, lakes, and fjords;
(7) the region played a unique role as a portal and
transportation corridor through which indigenous people,
explorers, missionaries, gold miners, cannery workers, big
game hunters, homesteaders, foresters, railroad workers,
military personnel, and petroleum developers traveled into
southcentral and interior Alaska as part of the waves of
travel that characterized the history of the United States;
(8) the region exhibits a high degree of integrity with
vast tracks of rugged, undeveloped areas and natural scenery
that still look much as the area did to the original
inhabitants, the indigenous people, and early explorers and
pioneers of the region;
(9) studies that led to the designation of the Iditarod
National Historic Trail, the Seward Highway All American
Road, and the Alaska Railroad National Scenic Railroad--
(A) determined the national significance of separate
transportation routes traversing the region; and
(B) illustrate the national significance of heritage
resources in the region;
(10) designation of the transportation corridor as a
national heritage area--
(A) provides for a comprehensive interpretation of human
history in the wide transportation corridor through the Kenai
Mountains and upper Turnagain Arm, including early Native
trade routes, historic waterways, mining trails, historic
communities, and the 3 designated routes of national
significance referred to in paragraph (9);
(B) recognizes the national significance of the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm transportation corridor, including--
(i) the historic and modern resource development of the
transportation corridor; and
(ii) the cultural, natural, and recreational resources and
landscapes of the transportation corridor; and
(C) would provide assistance to local communities, Indian
tribes, and residents of the transportation corridor in--
(i) preserving and interpreting cultural and historic
resources; and
(ii) fostering cooperative planning and partnerships;
(11) an additional feasibility study for the Heritage Area
is not needed before designation of the Heritage Area because
the studies referred to in paragraph (9) provide sufficient
documentation of--
(A) the national significance of heritage resources in the
region; and
(B) the support of local communities for designation of the
Heritage Area; and
(12) the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest
Heritage Corridor Communities Association--
(A) has been formed as a nonprofit corporation to act as
the Local Coordinating Entity for the Heritage Area; and
(B) is governed by bylaws that define the purposes of the
Association as the purposes established by Congress for the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize, preserve, and interpret the historic and
modern resource development and cultural landscapes of the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm historic transportation
corridor; and
(2) to promote and facilitate the public enjoyment of the
resources.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area
established by section 4(a).
(2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``Local
Coordinating Entity'' means the local coordinating entity for
the Heritage Area designated by section 5(a).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under
section 6.
(4) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Draft
Proposed NHA Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm'' and dated August
7, 2007.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Alaska.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF KENAI MOUNTAINS-TURNAGAIN ARM
NATIONAL FOREST HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be comprised of
the land in the Kenai Mountains and upper Turnagain Arm
region, as generally depicted on the map.
(c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in--
(1) the appropriate offices of the Forest Service, Chugach
National Forest;
(2) the Alaska Regional Office of the National Park
Service; and
(3) the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer.
SEC. 5. LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.
(a) Designation.--The Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Forest Heritage Corridor Communities Association, a
nonprofit corporation chartered in the State, shall be the
local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area.
(b) Duties.--To further the purposes of the Heritage Area,
the Local Coordinating Entity shall--
(1) in accordance with section 6, prepare and submit to the
Secretary a management plan for the Heritage Area;
(2) for any fiscal year for which the Local Coordinating
Entity receives Federal funds under this Act--
(A) submit an annual report to the Secretary that
describes--
(i) the specific performance goals and accomplishments of
the Local Coordinating Entity;
(ii) the expenses and income of the Local Coordinating
Entity;
(iii) the amounts and sources of matching funds;
(iv) the amounts leveraged with Federal funds and the
sources of the leveraging; and
(v) any grants made to any other entities during the fiscal
year; and
(B) make available to the Secretary for audit any
information relating to the expenditure of--
(i) the Federal funds; and
(ii) any matching funds; and
(3) encourage, consistent with the purposes of the Heritage
Area, the economic viability and sustainability of the
Heritage Area.
(c) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and
implementing the management plan for the Heritage Area, and
subject to section 9(c), the Local Coordinating Entity may
use Federal funds made available under this Act to--
(1) make grants to units of local government, nonprofit
organizations, and other parties within the Heritage Area;
(2) enter into agreements with, or provide technical
assistance to, Federal agencies, units of local government,
nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties;
(3) hire and compensate staff, including individuals with
expertise in--
(A) natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, and
recreational resource conservation;
(B) economic and community development; and
(C) heritage planning;
(4) obtain funds or services from any source, including
other Federal laws or programs;
(5) contract for goods or services; and
(6) support activities of partners and any other activities
that--
(A) further the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
(B) are consistent with the management plan.
(d) Public Meetings.--
(1) In general.--Annually, the Local Coordinating Entity
shall conduct at least 2 meetings open to the public
regarding the development and implementation of the
management plan.
(2) Notice; availability of minutes.--The Local
Coordinating Entity shall--
(A) publish a notice of each public meeting in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Heritage Area; and
(B) make the minutes of the meeting available to the
public.
(e) Prohibition on Acquisition of Real Property.--The Local
Coordinating Entity
[[Page 10186]]
shall not use Federal funds authorized under this Act to
acquire any interest in real property.
SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which funds are first made available to develop the
management plan, the Local Coordinating Entity shall submit
to the Secretary for approval a management plan for the
Heritage Area.
(b) Requirements.--The management plan shall--
(1) include--
(A) a list of comprehensive policies, goals, strategies,
and recommendations for actions and projects consistent with
the purposes of the Heritage Area;
(B) a description of proposed actions and financial
commitments of governments (including tribal governments) and
private organizations that would accomplish the purposes of
the Heritage Area;
(C) a description of the role and participation of the
Federal Government and State, tribal, and local governments
that have jurisdiction over land within the Heritage Area;
and
(D) an inventory of the natural, historic, cultural,
educational, scenic, and recreational resources of the
Heritage Area that should be protected, enhanced,
interpreted, managed, funded, and developed;
(2) identify existing and potential sources of funding to
accomplish the recommended actions and projects for the
Heritage Area;
(3) include a business plan that--
(A) describes the role, operation, financing, and functions
of--
(i) the Local Coordinating Entity; and
(ii) each of the major activities addressed in the
management plan; and
(B) provides adequate assurances that the Local
Coordinating Entity has the partnerships and financial and
other resources necessary to implement the management plan;
and
(4) be consistent with Federal, State, borough, and local
plans, including--
(A) the plans for the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai
Fjords National Park; and
(B) State transportation and historic management plans.
(c) Termination of Funding.--If the Local Coordinating
Entity does not submit the management plan to the Secretary
by the date that is 3 years after the date on which funds are
first made available to develop the management plan, the
Local Coordinating Entity shall be ineligible to receive
additional funding under this Act until the date on which the
management plan is approved by the Secretary.
(d) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
receipt of the management plan under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
(2) Considerations.--In determining whether to approve or
disapprove the management plan under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall consider whether--
(A) the Local Coordinating Entity--
(i) has afforded adequate opportunities for public and
governmental involvement in the preparation of the management
plan; and
(ii) provides for at least semiannual public meetings to
ensure adequate implementation of the management plan;
(B) the resource protection, enhancement, interpretation,
funding, management, and development strategies described in
the management plan, if implemented, would adequately
protect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and develop the
natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, and
recreational resources of the Heritage Area;
(C) the management plan--
(i) is consistent with applicable Federal, State, borough,
and local plans; and
(ii) would not adversely affect any activities authorized
on Federal land;
(D) the Local Coordinating Entity, in partnership with
other entities, has demonstrated the financial capability to
carry out the management plan;
(E) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from
State and local officials, the support of which is needed to
ensure the effective implementation of the State and local
elements of the management plan; and
(F) the management plan demonstrates sufficient
partnerships among the Local Coordinating Entity, the Federal
Government, State and local governments, regional planning
organizations, nonprofit organizations, or private sector
parties to implement the management plan.
(3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves the management plan under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) advise the Local Coordinating Entity in writing of the
reasons for the disapproval;
(B) make recommendations for revisions to the management
plan; and
(C) not later than 180 days after the receipt of any
proposed revision of the management plan, approve or
disapprove the proposed revision.
(e) Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review and approve any
substantial amendments to the management plan in accordance
with subsection (d).
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this Act
shall not be expended by the Local Coordinating Entity to
implement any changes made by an amendment described in
paragraph (1) until the Secretary approves the amendment.
(f) Implementation.--In implementing the management plan,
the Local Coordinating Entity shall give priority to--
(1) carrying out programs that recognize important resource
values within the Heritage Area;
(2) encouraging economic viability in the affected
communities;
(3) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits
within the Heritage Area;
(4) improving and interpreting heritage trails;
(5) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for,
the natural, historic, and cultural resources of the Heritage
Area, including the contributions of local Indian tribes;
(6) providing opportunities for expanding the public
perception of the need for modern resource development of the
Heritage Area;
(7) restoring historic buildings and structures that are
located within the Heritage Area; and
(8) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs
identifying public access points and sites of interest are
appropriately placed in the Heritage Area.
SEC. 7. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Secretary shall enter
into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a general framework for cooperation and
consultation in the development and implementation of the
management plan.
(b) Authorities.--The Secretary may--
(1) subject to the availability of funds, provide technical
and financial assistance for the development and
implementation of the management plan;
(2) enter into cooperative agreements with interested
parties to carry out this Act; and
(3) in partnership with the Local Coordinating Entity,
provide information on, promote understanding of, and
encourage research on the Heritage Area.
(c) Information Released by the Secretary of the
Interior.--The Secretary of the Interior shall include the
Heritage Area in all nationwide releases, listings, or maps
that provide public information about the system of national
heritage areas.
SEC. 8. PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) grants powers of zoning or management of land use to
the Local Coordinating Entity;
(2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the
Federal Government or any State, tribal, or local government
to manage or regulate any use of land under applicable laws
(including regulations);
(3) requires any private property owner to allow public
access to the private property, including access by the
Federal Government or tribal, State, or local governments;
(4) modifies any provision of Federal, tribal, State, or
local law with respect to public access to, or use of,
private property;
(5) obstructs or limits--
(A) business activities on private developments; or
(B) resource development activities;
(6) affects the rights of private property owners;
(7) restricts or limits an Indian tribe from protecting
cultural or religious sites on tribal or Native Corporation
land; or
(8) requires the owner of any private property located
within the boundaries of the Heritage Area to participate in,
or be associated with, the Heritage Area.
(b) Applicable Law.--Designation of the Heritage Area under
this Act does not convey status to the Heritage Area as a
conservation system unit (as defined in section 102 of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.
3102)).
(c) Liability.--Designation of the Heritage Area does not
create any liability for, or affect any liability under any
other law of, any private property owner with respect to a
person injured on the private property.
(d) Effect of Establishment.--Designation of the Heritage
Area does not establish any regulatory authority on land use
within the Heritage Area or the viewshed for the Federal
Government or any State or local government.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), there are
authorized to be appropriated and made available to the Local
Coordinating Entity to carry out the development and
implementation of the management plan--
(1) $350,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(2) $500,000 for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), not more
than $7,500,000 is authorized to be appropriated for the
Heritage Area.
(c) Cost Sharing Requirement.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Federal share of the total cost of any
activity carried out using assistance under this Act shall be
not more than 75 percent, including the contribution of in-
kind services.
SEC. 10. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this Act terminates on the
[[Page 10187]]
date that is 15 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coleman, Mr.
Specter, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 3046. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
create a new conditional approval system for drugs, biological
products, and devices that is responsive to the needs of seriously ill
patients, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I
introduced today: the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for
Seriously-ill Patients Act, ACCESS, Act. I would like to thank the
original Senate cosponsors: Senators Bob Casey, Norm Coleman, Arlen
Specter and James Inhofe. I also especially thank Representative Dianne
Watson who will be introducing the companion bill in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
In the current era, certain cancers and other chronic diseases touch
the lives of almost every American. If you have had the experience of a
family member or friend struggling with terminal illness, you were
probably aware of their need and limited timeline to access promising
treatments. Unfortunately, the current system often does not work for
the benefit of terminally-ill patients--during emotionally-charged
times, patients and their families may face regulatory and bureaucratic
hurdles if they wish to access investigational treatment options in
order to preserve their lives. Many terminally-ill patients exhaust
their treatment options and do not qualify for a clinical trial. They
also do not physically have months to wait for an individual
investigational treatment application to be approved.
In this day and age of scientific breakthroughs, we must embrace
these advances and do so with a ``patient-centered'' mindset.
Terminally-ill patients often reach a point where the potential
benefits of these breakthrough treatments outweigh their inevitable
risk of death from their disease.
I introduced the ACCESS Act to offer these patients an ethical
option--compassionate access to treatments that show promise earlier in
the drug development process. The average time for a treatment to go
through the entire FDA approval process is 15 years. As a result, the
current system tends to benefit future generations of patients with
life-threatening diseases, rather than patients of the present time.
The ACCESS Act offers a new Compassionate Investigational Access
approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials,
for use by the seriously-ill patient population. Seriously-ill patients
who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment
options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent
of their physician. This bill also improves upon the existing
accelerated approval system, using a patient-centered framework. The
ACCESS Act also makes a technical correction that will increase patient
access to drugs used off-label to treat life-threatening diseases.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the ACCESS Act that
would offer patients, with little hope, a chance at life.
______
By Mr. BROWN:
S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution recognizing the efforts of the Ohio
Department of Mental Health and the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug
Addiction Services to address the stigma associated with mental health
and substance use disorders; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, May is National Mental Health Month. This
proud tradition was started over 50 years ago. Each May, the mental
health community comes together to raise awareness about mental health
disorders and to celebrate recovery. The last 50 years have seen
significant progress in the treatment of mental disorders.
We know that with treatment and support, it is possible to recover.
Dr. Fred Frese knows this first hand. I met Dr. Frese at a roundtable
that I held in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Frese served as Director of
Psychology at Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital for 15 years. He is
currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Clinical Psychiatry
at Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio Universities
College of Medicine. He has authored and reviewed numerous articles and
chapters, lectured in several countries and served on the boards of
trustees of various organizations that work on behalf of individuals
with disabilities.
In 1999, Dr. Frese received the Hildreth Award, the highest honor
given by the American Psychological Association's Psychologists in
Public Service Division. Over the course of his career, he has
testified numerous times before both houses of the United States
Congress. Dr. Frese's career has been remarkable. His life has been
remarkable.
He has been living with paranoid schizophrenia since 1966. Dr. Frese
is remarkable. But his recovery is not unusual.
Many people stricken with mental illness can and do recover with
appropriate treatment. But the stigma associated with mental health
disorders can discourage people from getting the help they need. The
U.S. Surgeon General's seminal report on mental health cites stigma as
a significant barrier to recovery.
I am proud to say that Ohio's Departments of Mental Health and
Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services are doing something about it. They
have launched a ``Think Outside the Stigma'' campaign, a public
information effort to increase awareness about the misperceptions
associated with mental health and substance use disorders.
Today I am introducing a resolution commending this campaign.
My colleague in the house, Congressman Zack Space, is offering a
companion resolution.
Imagine a world where individuals with mental disorders are supported
and treated, not marginalized and discriminated against. Imagine a
world where we see individuals first and disability second. Imagine the
wealth of talent and resources that individuals with mental illness can
realize with treatment. Individuals like Dr. Frese.
We must work together to overcome the unfair and unnecessary burden
of stigma associated with mental illness and substance use disorders.
We know that treatment can work. We know that people can recover. We
know that Americans are well worth the investment.
We know that Americans are well worth the investment.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 572--CALLING UPON THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO UPHOLD THE FUNDAMENTAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PARENTS TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION
OF THEIR CHILDREN
Mrs. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 572
Whereas the modern homeschool movement in the United States
demonstrates that homeschooled children are a vital component
of the United States education system;
Whereas homeschool graduates act responsibly as parents and
as students in colleges and universities, are valuable in the
workplace, and are productive citizens in society at large;
Whereas many studies confirm that children who are educated
at home score considerably above the national average on
nationally-normed achievement tests, and above the average on
both the SAT and ACT college entrance exams;
Whereas homeschooled children, such as 2007 Heisman Trophy
winner Tim Tebow, are receiving national recognition for
their victories in national competitions, such as national
spelling bees and geography bees, and are being highly sought
after by nationally-recognized colleges and universities;
Whereas homeschooling families contribute significantly to
the cultural diversity important to a healthy society;
Whereas notable individuals such as Benjamin Franklin, John
Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, Ansel Adams, Charles Dickens,
and General Douglas MacArthur all received a high-quality
education at home;
[[Page 10188]]
Whereas over 2,100,000 children are being homeschooled
nationwide;
Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a
fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing
and education of their children, in the cases of Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205
(1972);
Whereas on February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeal for the
Second Appellate District of California, in Los Angeles,
California, issued an opinion in the case of In re Rachel L.,
73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), that homeschool
parents who did not hold a teaching credential could not
legally homeschool their children;
Whereas the initial decision by the Court of Appeal in that
case would have had an adverse impact on approximately
166,000 children in California who are receiving a quality
education at home; and
Whereas on March 25, 2008, the Court of Appeal granted a
motion for rehearing in the In re Rachel L. case, with
respect to the decision that required parents to hold a
teaching credential in order to legally homeschool their
children; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commends the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate
District of California, in Los Angeles, California, for
allowing a rehearing in the case of In re Rachel L., 73 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); and
(2) calls upon the court to uphold the Supreme Court's
opinion that parents have a fundamental and constitutional
right to direct the upbringing and education of their
children.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 573--RECOGNIZING CUBA SOLIDARITY DAY AND THE STRUGGLE
OF THE CUBAN PEOPLE AS THEY CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM
Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Lieberman) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 573
Whereas the Cuban regime continues to deny the basic human
rights of its citizens;
Whereas the Cuban people are denied freedom of the press,
freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceful assembly;
Whereas the Cuban regime refuses to hold free and fair
elections in order to elect a democratic government that
represents the will of the people;
Whereas Freedom House recently rated Cuba as 1 of the 8
most oppressive regimes in the world;
Whereas the Cuban regime is currently holding more than 220
political prisoners according to Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders;
Whereas these prisoners are illegally held in prison
contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
Cuba has signed and recognizes;
Whereas 55 of the 75 political activists imprisoned in the
March 2003 crackdown (known as ``Black Spring'') including
independent journalists and union members, remain in prison;
Whereas the wives of these prisoners, known as the Ladies
in White, continue to be assaulted for simply seeking
information regarding the March 2003 arrests, most recently
on April 21, 2008, when the Ladies in White were violently
dragged from a peaceful sit-in by Cuban officials;
Whereas prisoners face inhuman and unsafe prison
conditions, including the denial of medical treatment; and
Whereas on May 21, 2008 communities around the world will
celebrate Cuba Solidarity Day, a day for the world to join
together in the fight against oppression in Cuba: Now
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) celebrates Cuba Solidarity Day;
(2) recognizes the injustices faced by the people of Cuba
under the current regime; and
(3) stands in solidarity with the Cuban people as they
continue to work towards democratic change in their homeland.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 83--SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF
NATIONAL BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH
Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton (for herself and Mrs. Murray)) submitted
the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
S. Con. Res. 83
Whereas the National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders reports that approximately 42,000,000
people in the United States suffer from a speech, voice,
language, or hearing impairment;
Whereas approximately 32,500,000, or 15 percent, of adults
in the United States report some degree of hearing loss;
Whereas 1 out of every 3 people in the United States over
60 years of age has a hearing problem;
Whereas 1 in 6, or 15 percent, of people in the baby boom
generation, between the ages of 41 and 59, has a hearing
problem;
Whereas 1 in 14, or 7 percent, of people in the United
States between the ages of 29 and 40 already has hearing
loss;
Whereas at least 1,400,000 children in the United States
have hearing problems;
Whereas traumatic brain injury is an increasing problem
among members of the Armed Forces returning from the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas patients with traumatic brain injury may have
problems with spoken language, called dysarthria, if the part
of the brain that controls speech muscles is damaged,
resulting in speech that is often slowed, slurred, and
garbled;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces sent to battle zones
are more than 50 times more likely to suffer noise-induced
hearing loss than members of the Armed Forces who do not
deploy;
Whereas, although more than 32,500,000 adults in the United
States could benefit from the use of hearing aids, only 1 in
5 people who could benefit from a hearing aid actually wears
one;
Whereas, of children between the ages of 6 and 19 years
old, approximately 5,200,000, or 12.5 percent, are estimated
to have noise-induced hearing loss in one or both ears, often
as a result of increased environmental noise;
Whereas hearing loss is the most common congenital disorder
in newborns;
Whereas a delay in diagnosing a hearing loss when a child
is born can affect the child's social, emotional, and
academic development;
Whereas, during the 2003 school year, more than 1,500,000
children had speech, language, or hearing impairments and
received services under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.);
Whereas children with language impairments are 4 to 5 times
more likely than their peers to experience reading problems;
Whereas 10 percent of children entering the first grade
have moderate to severe speech disorders, including
stuttering;
Whereas more than 3,000,000 people in the United States of
all ages stutter;
Whereas approximately 1,000,000 people in the United States
have aphasia, a language disorder inhibiting spoken
communication that results from damage caused by a stroke or
other traumatic injury to the language centers of the brain;
and
Whereas, since 1927, May has been celebrated as National
Better Hearing and Speech Month in order to raise awareness
regarding speech, voice, language, and hearing impairments
and to provide an opportunity for Federal, State, and local
governments, members of the private and nonprofit sectors,
speech and hearing professionals, and the people of the
United States to focus on preventing, mitigating, and curing
such impairments: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Better
Hearing and Speech Month;
(2) urges increased coordination of community-based,
comprehensive care for members of the Armed Forces, veterans,
athletes, and accident victims who have experienced hearing
and speech deficiencies as a result of traumatic brain
injury;
(3) supports the efforts of speech and hearing
professionals to improve the speech and hearing development
of children;
(4) encourages the people of the United States to have
their hearing checked regularly and to avoid environmental
noise that can lead to hearing loss; and
(5) commends the 46 States that have implemented routine
hearing screenings for every newborn before the newborn
leaves the hospital.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 4805. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations
for military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 4806. Mr. CORKER (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr.
Dodd) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 4807. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4808. Mr. CONRAD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4809. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr.
[[Page 10189]]
Harkin, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Reid) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4810. Mrs. DOLE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4811. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4812. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4813. Mr. CASEY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr.
Voinovich) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 4814. Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Ensign, and Mr.
Roberts) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4803 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2642,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 4805. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
sense of senate on provision of tactical and utility helicopters to
support the united nations-african union peacekeeping mission in darfur
Sec. __. It is the sense of the Senate that all efforts
should be made to expedite any lease, transfer, or
acquisition of tactical and utility helicopters to support
the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in
Darfur, Sudan, as provided in section 1411 of this Act.
______
SA 4806. Mr. CORKER (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Dodd) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642,
making appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. It is the sense of the Senate that, of the funds
made available by this Act to carry out title II of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1721 et seq.), for the 180-day period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, $60,000,000 should be made
available to respond to the emergency food assistance needs
of Haiti.
______
SA 4807. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE __--DOMESTIC FUELS SECURITY
SECTION __01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Gas Petroleum Refiner
Improvement and Community Empowerment Act'' or ``Gas PRICE
Act''.
SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Coal-to-liquid.--The term ``coal-to-liquid'' means--
(A) with respect to a process or technology, the use of a
feedstock, the majority of which is derived from the coal
resources of the United States, using the class of reactions
known as Fischer-Tropsch, to produce synthetic fuel suitable
for transportation; and
(B) with respect to a facility, the portion of a facility
related to producing the inputs for the Fischer-Tropsch
process, or the finished fuel from the Fischer-Tropsch
process, using a feedstock that is primarily domestic coal at
the Fischer-Tropsch facility.
(3) Domestic fuels facility.--
(A) In general.--The term ``domestic fuels facility''
means--
(i) a coal liquification or coal-to-liquid facility at
which coal is processed into synthetic crude oil or any other
transportation fuel;
(ii) a facility that produces a renewable fuel (as defined
in section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(o)(1))); and
(iii) a facility at which crude oil is refined into
transportation fuel or other petroleum products.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``domestic fuels facility''
includes a domestic fuels facility expansion.
(4) Domestic fuels facility expansion.--The term ``domestic
fuels facility expansion'' means a physical change in a
domestic fuels facility that results in an increase in the
capacity of the domestic fuels facility.
(5) Domestic fuels facility permitting agreement.--The term
``domestic fuels facility permitting agreement'' means an
agreement entered into between the Administrator and a State
or Indian tribe under subsection (b).
(6) Domestic fuels producer.--The term ``domestic fuels
producer'' means an individual or entity that--
(A) owns or operates a domestic fuels facility; or
(B) seeks to become an owner or operator of a domestic
fuels facility.
(7) Indian land.--The term ``Indian land'' has the meaning
given the term ``Indian lands'' in section 3 of the Native
American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism
Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 4302).
(8) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(9) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means any permit, license,
approval, variance, or other form of authorization that a
refiner is required to obtain--
(A) under any Federal law; or
(B) from a State or Indian tribal government agency
delegated with authority by the Federal Government, or
authorized under Federal law to issue permits.
(10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
Subtitle A--Collaborative Permitting Process for Domestic Fuels
Facilities
SEC. __11. COLLABORATIVE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR DOMESTIC
FUELS FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--At the request of the Governor of a State
or the governing body of an Indian tribe, the Administrator
shall enter into a domestic fuels facility permitting
agreement with the State or Indian tribe under which the
process for obtaining all permits necessary for the
construction and operation of a domestic fuels facility shall
be improved using a systematic interdisciplinary multimedia
approach as provided in this section.
(b) Authority of Administrator.--Under a domestic fuels
facility permitting agreement--
(1) the Administrator shall have authority, as applicable
and necessary, to--
(A) accept from a refiner a consolidated application for
all permits that the domestic fuels producer is required to
obtain to construct and operate a domestic fuels facility;
(B) establish a schedule under which each Federal, State,
or Indian tribal government agency that is required to make
any determination to authorize the issuance of a permit
shall--
(i) concurrently consider, to the maximum extent
practicable, each determination to be made; and
(ii) complete each step in the permitting process; and
(C) issue a consolidated permit that combines all permits
that the domestic fuels producer is required to obtain; and
(2) the Administrator shall provide to State and Indian
tribal government agencies--
(A) financial assistance in such amounts as the agencies
reasonably require to hire such additional personnel as are
necessary to enable the government agencies to comply with
the applicable schedule established under paragraph (1)(B);
and
(B) technical, legal, and other assistance in complying
with the domestic fuels facility permitting agreement.
(c) Agreement by the State.--Under a domestic fuels
facility permitting agreement, a State or governing body of
an Indian tribe shall agree that--
(1) the Administrator shall have each of the authorities
described in subsection (b); and
(2) each State or Indian tribal government agency shall--
(A) make such structural and operational changes in the
agencies as are necessary to enable the agencies to carry out
consolidated project-wide permit reviews concurrently and in
coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and
other Federal agencies; and
(B) comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
applicable schedule established under subsection (b)(1)(B).
(d) Interdisciplinary Approach.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator and a State or governing
body of an Indian tribe shall incorporate an
interdisciplinary approach, to the maximum extent
practicable,
[[Page 10190]]
in the development, review, and approval of domestic fuels
facility permits subject to this section.
(2) Options.--Among other options, the interdisciplinary
approach may include use of--
(A) environmental management practices; and
(B) third party contractors.
(e) Deadlines.--
(1) New domestic fuels facilities.--In the case of a
consolidated permit for the construction of a new domestic
fuels facility, the Administrator and the State or governing
body of an Indian tribe shall approve or disapprove the
consolidated permit not later than--
(A) 360 days after the date of the receipt of the
administratively complete application for the consolidated
permit; or
(B) on agreement of the applicant, the Administrator, and
the State or governing body of the Indian tribe, 90 days
after the expiration of the deadline established under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Expansion of existing domestic fuels facilities.--In
the case of a consolidated permit for the expansion of an
existing domestic fuels facility, the Administrator and the
State or governing body of an Indian tribe shall approve or
disapprove the consolidated permit not later than--
(A) 120 days after the date of the receipt of the
administratively complete application for the consolidated
permit; or
(B) on agreement of the applicant, the Administrator, and
the State or governing body of the Indian tribe, 30 days
after the expiration of the deadline established under
subparagraph (A).
(f) Federal Agencies.--Each Federal agency that is required
to make any determination to authorize the issuance of a
permit shall comply with the applicable schedule established
under subsection (b)(1)(B).
(g) Judicial Review.--Any civil action for review of any
determination of any Federal, State, or Indian tribal
government agency in a permitting process conducted under a
domestic fuels facility permitting agreement brought by any
individual or entity shall be brought exclusively in the
United States district court for the district in which the
domestic fuels facility is located or proposed to be located.
(h) Efficient Permit Review.--In order to reduce the
duplication of procedures, the Administrator shall use State
permitting and monitoring procedures to satisfy substantially
equivalent Federal requirements under this section.
(i) Severability.--If 1 or more permits that are required
for the construction or operation of a domestic fuels
facility are not approved on or before any deadline
established under subsection (e), the Administrator may issue
a consolidated permit that combines all other permits that
the domestic fuels producer is required to obtain other than
any permits that are not approved.
(j) Savings.--Nothing in this section affects the operation
or implementation of otherwise applicable law regarding
permits necessary for the construction and operation of a
domestic fuels facility.
(k) Consultation With Local Governments.--Congress
encourages the Administrator, States, and tribal governments
to consult, to the maximum extent practicable, with local
governments in carrying out this section.
(l) Effect on Local Authority.--Nothing in this section
affects--
(1) the authority of a local government with respect to the
issuance of permits; or
(2) any requirement or ordinance of a local government
(such as zoning regulations).
Subtitle B--Environmental Analysis of Fischer-Tropsch Fuels
SEC. __21. EVALUATION OF FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL AND JET FUEL
AS AN EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY.
(a) In General.--In cooperation with the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and Fischer-Tropsch industry representatives,
the Administrator shall--
(1) conduct a research and demonstration program to
evaluate the air quality benefits of ultra-clean Fischer-
Tropsch transportation fuel, including diesel and jet fuel;
(2) evaluate the use of ultra-clean Fischer-Tropsch
transportation fuel as a mechanism for reducing engine
exhaust emissions; and
(3) submit recommendations to Congress on the most
effective use and associated benefits of these ultra-clean
fuels for reducing public exposure to exhaust emissions.
(b) Guidance and Technical Support.--The Administrator
shall, to the extent necessary, issue any guidance or
technical support documents that would facilitate the
effective use and associated benefit of Fischer-Tropsch fuel
and blends.
(c) Requirements.--The program described in subsection (a)
shall consider--
(1) the use of neat (100 percent) Fischer-Tropsch fuel and
blends with conventional crude oil-derived fuel for heavy-
duty and light-duty diesel engines and the aviation sector;
and
(2) the production costs associated with domestic
production of those ultra clean fuel and prices for
consumers.
(d) Reports.--The Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives--
(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, an interim report on actions taken to carry out
this section; and
(2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, a final report on actions taken to carry out this
section.
Subtitle C--Domestic Coal-to-Liquid Fuel and Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol
SEC. __31. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL-SCALE CELLULOSIC BIOMASS ETHANOL
PROJECTS AND COAL-TO-LIQUIDS FACILITIES ON BRAC
PROPERTY AND INDIAN LAND.
(a) Priority.--Notwithstanding section 206 of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3146),
in awarding funds made available to carry out section
209(c)(1) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(1)) pursuant to
section 702 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3232), the Secretary and
the Economic Development Administration shall give priority
to projects to support commercial-scale cellulosic biomass
ethanol projects and coal-to-liquids facilities.
(b) Federal Share.--Except as provided in subsection
(c)(3)(B) and notwithstanding the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.), the Federal
share of a project to support a commercial-scale biomass
ethanol facility or coal-to-liquid facility shall be--
(1) 80 percent of the project cost; or
(2) for a project carried out on Indian land, 100 percent
of the project cost.
(c) Additional Award.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make an additional
award in connection with a grant made to a recipient
(including any Indian tribe for use on Indian land) for a
project to support a commercial-scale biomass ethanol
facility or coal-to-liquid facility.
(2) Amount.--The amount of an additional award shall be 10
percent of the amount of the grant for the project.
(3) Use.--An additional award under this subsection shall
be used--
(A) to carry out any eligible purpose under the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et
seq.);
(B) notwithstanding section 204 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
3144), to pay up to 100 percent of the cost of an eligible
project or activity under that Act; or
(C) to meet the non-Federal share requirements of that Act
or any other Act.
(4) Non-federal source.--For the purpose of paragraph
(3)(C), an additional award shall be treated as funds from a
non-Federal source.
(5) Funding.--The Secretary shall use to carry out this
subsection any amounts made available--
(A) for economic development assistance programs; or
(B) under section 702 of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3232).
Subtitle D--Alternative Hydrocarbon and Renewable Reserves Disclosures
Classification System
SEC. __41. ALTERNATIVE HYDROCARBON AND RENEWABLE RESERVES
DISCLOSURES CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--The Securities and Exchange Commission
shall appoint a task force composed of government and private
sector representatives, including experts in the field of
dedicated energy crop feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels
production, to analyze, and submit to Congress a report
(including recommendations) on--
(1) modernization of the hydrocarbon reserves disclosures
classification system of the Commission to reflect advances
in reserves recovery from nontraditional sources (such as
deep water, oil shale, tar sands, and renewable reserves for
cellulosic biofuels feedstocks); and
(2) the creation of a renewable reserves classification
system for cellulosic biofuels feedstocks.
(b) Deadline for Report.--The Commission shall submit the
report required under subsection (a) not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. __51. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made by
this title.
______
SA 4808. Mr. CONRAD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ASSISTANCE TO SMALL CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS
TRANSITIONING TO SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES.
Section 1820(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i-4(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
[[Page 10191]]
``(6) Critical access hospitals transitioning to skilled
nursing facilities.--
``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible
critical access hospitals that have submitted applications in
accordance with subparagraph (B) for assisting such hospitals
in the transition to skilled nursing facilities.
``(B) Application.--An applicable critical access hospital
seeking a grant under this paragraph shall submit an
application to the Secretary on or before such date and in
such form and manner as the Secretary specifies.
``(C) Additional requirements.--The Secretary may not award
a grant under this paragraph to an eligible critical access
hospital unless--
``(i) local organizations or the State in which the
hospital is located provides matching funds; and
``(ii) the hospital provides assurances that it will
surrender critical access hospital status under this title
within 180 days of receiving the grant.
``(D) Amount of grant.--A grant to an eligible critical
access hospital under this paragraph may not exceed
$1,000,000.
``(E) Funding.--There are appropriated from the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 for making
grants under this paragraph, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
``(F) Eligible critical access hospital defined.--For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `eligible critical
access hospital' means a critical access hospital that has an
average daily acute census of less than 0.5 and an average
daily swing bed census of greater than 10.0.''.
______
SA 4809. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Menendez, and Mr. Reid) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
safe redeployment of the united states armed forces from iraq
Sec. __. (a) Transition of Mission.--The President shall
promptly transition the mission of the United States Armed
Forces in Iraq to the limited and temporary purposes set
forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq.--
The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of
members of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq who are
not essential to the limited and temporary purposes set forth
in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and
security of United States troops.
(c) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act or any other provision of law may be
obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of
members of the United States Armed Forces after the date that
is nine months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Exception for Limited and Temporary Purposes.--The
prohibition in subsection (c) shall not apply to the
obligation or expenditure of funds for the following limited
and temporary purposes:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and
scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated
international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States Government
personnel and infrastructure.
(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security
Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in
attacks upon the United States Armed Forces, provided that
such training does not involve members of the United States
Armed Forces taking part in combat operations or being
embedded with Iraqi forces.
(4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to
members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure,
maintain, or improve their safety and security.
(e) Use of Funds for Redeployment and for Health Care and
Housing for Members of the Armed Forces and Veterans.--
Amounts that would, but for the limitation in subsection (c),
be available for obligation or expenditure for the continuing
deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed
Forces shall be obligated and expended instead solely as
follows:
(1) By the Secretary of Defense, for the redeployment of
members of the United States Armed Forces as described in
subsection (b).
(2) By the Secretary of Defense--
(A) for programs and activities to maintain, enhance, and
improve military housing for members of the Armed Forces; and
(B) for programs and activities to improve and enhance the
medical and dental care available to members of the Armed
Forces.
(3) By the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for programs and
activities to improve the hospital care, medical care, and
other health care benefits and services available to
veterans.
______
SA 4810. Mrs. DOLE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
$2,695,000 appropriated for the Charlotte Rapid Transit
Extension-Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project, NC under the
Alternatives Analysis Account in division K of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161)
shall be used for the Charlotte Rapid Transit Extension-
Northeast Corridor to carry out new fixed guideway capital
projects or for extensions to existing fixed guideway capital
projects described in section 5309 of title 49, United States
Code.
______
SA 4811. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
preference on coordination with indigenous iraqi non-governmental
organizations in projects assisting internally displaced iraqis
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall ensure
in the allocation of all funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act for projects assisting
internally displaced Iraqis, including projects for
humanitarian assistance, training, capacity building, or
construction and repair of infrastructure directly affecting
the return or resettlement of displaced Iraqis, preference
shall be given to projects coordinated with indigenous Iraqi
non-governmental organizations.
______
SA 4812. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Provision of Project-Based Housing for Affordable Housing Units Damaged
or Destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita
Pursuant to section 215 of title II of division K of Public
Law 110-161 (121 Stat. 2433), the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall, not later than October 1, 2008,
promptly review and approve (A) any feasible proposal made by
the owner of a covered assisted multifamily housing project
submitted to the Secretary that provides for the
rehabilitation of such project and the resumption of use of
the project-based assistance under the contract for such
project or (B) the transfer, subject to the conditions
established under section 215(b) of title II of division K of
Public Law 110-161, of the contract for such covered assisted
multifamily housing project, or in the case of a covered
assisted multifamily housing project with an interest
reduction payments contract, of the remaining budget
authority under the contract, to a receiving project or
projects: Provided, the term ``covered assisted multifamily
housing project'' means housing that meets 1 of the
conditions established in section 215(c)(2) of title II of
division K of Public Law 110-161 and was damaged or destroyed
by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita of 2005 and is located in an
area in the State of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi that
was the subject of a disaster declaration by the President
under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in response
to Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita of 2005: Provided
further, That the term ``project-based assistance'' has the
same meaning as in section 215(c)(3) of title II of division
K of Public Law 110-161: Provided further, That the term
``receiving project or projects'' has the same meaning as in
section 215(c)(4) of title II of division K of Public Law
110-161.
______
SA 4813. Mr. CASEY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Voinovich)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
2642, making appropriations for military construction,
[[Page 10192]]
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows;
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall use
$5,000,000 of the funds made available under section 32 of
the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide
funding described in subsection (b) to eligible recipient
agencies to offset the costs of the agencies for intrastate
transportation, storage, and distribution of commodities made
available under section 202(a) of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7502(a)).
(b) The Secretary shall provide funding described in
subsection (a) to an eligible recipient agency at a rate
equal to the lower of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per dollar
value of commodities made available under section 202(a) of
the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7502(a))
that are made available under that Act to, and accepted by,
the eligible recipient agency.
______
SA 4814. Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Roberts)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4803
proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 31 of the amendment, strike line 17 and
all that follows through line 12 on page 35, and insert the
following:
SEC. 1404. WAIVER OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS TO FACILITATE
DENUCLEARIZATION ACTIVITIES IN NORTH KOREA.
(a) Waiver Authority and Exceptions.--
(1) Waiver authority.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the President may waive, in whole or in part, the application
of any sanction contained in subparagraph (A), (B), (D), or
(G) of section 102(b)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2799aa-1(b)(2)) with respect to North Korea in order
to provide material, direct, and necessary assistance for
disablement, dismantlement, verification, and physical
removal activities in the implementation of the commitment of
North Korea, undertaken in the Joint Statement of September
19, 2005, to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear
programs as part of the verifiable denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula.
(2) Exceptions.--The waiver authority under paragraph (1)
may not be exercised with respect to the following:
(A) Any export of lethal defense articles that would be
prevented by the application of section 102(b)(2)(B) of the
Arms Export Control Act.
(B) Any sanction relating to credit or credit guarantees
contained in section 102(b)(2)(D) of the Arms Export Control
Act.
(b) Certification Regarding Waiver of Certain Sanctions.--
Assistance described in subparagraph (B) or (G) of section
102(b)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-
1(b)(2)) may be provided with respect to North Korea by
reason of the exercise of the waiver authority under
subsection (a) only if the President first determines and
certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the
assistance will not be used to improve the military
capabilities of the armed forces of North Korea; and
(2) the exercise of the waiver authority is in the national
security interests of the United States.
(c) Congressional Notification and Report.--
(1) Notification.--The President shall notify the
appropriate congressional committees in writing not later
than 15 days before exercising the waiver authority under
subsection (a).
(2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for such time
during which the exercise of the waiver authority under
subsection (a) remains in effect, the President shall
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
that--
(A) describes in detail the progress that is being made in
the implementation of the commitment of North Korea described
in subsection (a);
(B) describes in detail any failures, shortcomings, or
obstruction by North Korea with respect to the implementation
of the commitment of North Korea described in subsection (a);
(C) describes in detail the progress or lack thereof in the
preceding 12-month period of all other programs promoting the
elimination of North Korea's capability to develop, deploy,
transfer, or maintain weapons of mass destruction or their
delivery systems; and
(D) beginning with the second report required by this
subsection, a justification for the continuation of the
waiver exercised under subsection (a) and, if applicable,
subsection (b), for the fiscal year in which the report is
submitted.
(d) Termination of Waiver Authority.--Any waiver in effect
by reason of the exercise of the waiver authority under
subsection (a) shall terminate if the President determines
that North Korea--
(1)(A) on or after September 19, 2005, transferred to a
non-nuclear-weapon state, or received, a nuclear explosive
device; or
(B) on or after October 10, 2006, detonated a nuclear
explosive device; or
(2) on or after September 19, 2005--
(A) transferred to a non-nuclear-weapon state any design
information or component which is determined by the President
to be important to, and known by North Korea to be intended
by the recipient state for use in, the development or
manufacture of any nuclear explosive device, or
(B) sought and received any design information or component
which is determined by the President to be important to, and
intended by North Korea for use in, the development or
manufacture of any nuclear explosive device,
unless the President determines and certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees that such waiver is
vital to the national security interests of the United
States.
(e) Expiration of Waiver Authority.--Any waiver in effect
by reason of the exercise of the waiver authority under
subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is 4 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act. The waiver
authority under subsection (a) may not be exercised beginning
on the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(f) Continuation of Restrictions Against the Government of
North Korea.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(1),
restrictions against the Government of North Korea that were
imposed by reason of a determination of the Secretary of
State that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism shall
remain in effect, and shall not be lifted pursuant to the
provisions of law under which the determination was made,
unless the President certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that--
(A) the Government of North Korea is no longer engaged in
the transfer of technology related to the acquisition or
development of nuclear weapons, particularly to the
Governments of Iran, Syria, or any other country that is a
state sponsor of terrorism;
(B) in accordance with the Six-Party Talks Agreement of
February 13, 2007, the Government of North Korea has
``provided a complete and correct declaration of all its
nuclear programs,'' and there are measures to effectively
verify this declaration by the United States which, ``[a]t
the request of the other Parties,'' is leading ``disablement
activities'' and ``provid[ing] the funding for those
activities''; and
(C) the Government of North Korea has agreed to the
participation of the International Atomic Energy Agency in
the monitoring and verification of the shutdown and sealing
of the Yongbyon nuclear facility.
(2) State sponsor of terrorism defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``state sponsor of terrorism'' means a
country the government of which the Secretary of State has
determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect pursuant
to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), section
40 of the Arms Export Control Act, section 620A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any other provision of
law, is a government that has repeatedly provided support for
acts of international terrorism.
(g) Report on Verification Measures Relating to North
Korea's Nuclear Programs.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 15 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report on
verification measures relating to North Korea's nuclear
programs under the Six-Party Talks Agreement of February 13,
2007, with specific focus on how such verification measures
are defined under the Six-Party Talks Agreement and
understood by the United States Government.
(2) Matters to be included.--The report required under
paragraph (1) shall include, among other elements, a detailed
description of--
(A) the methods to be utilized to confirm that North Korea
has ``provided a complete and correct declaration of all of
its nuclear programs'';
(B) the specific actions to be taken in North Korea and
elsewhere to ensure a high and ongoing level of confidence
that North Korea has fully met the terms of the Six-Party
Talks Agreement relating to its nuclear programs;
(C) any formal or informal agreement with North Korea
regarding verification measures relating to North Korea's
nuclear programs under the Six-Party Talks Agreement; and
(D) any disagreement expressed by North Korea regarding
verification measures relating to North Korea's nuclear
programs under the Six-Party Talks Agreement.
(3) Form.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(h) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
[[Page 10193]]
(A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate;
(2) the terms ``non-nuclear-weapon state'', ``design
information'', and ``component'' have the meanings given such
terms in section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2799aa-1); and
(3) the term ``Six-Party Talks Agreement of February 13,
2007'' or ``Six-Party Talks Agreement'' means the action plan
released on February 13, 2007, of the Third Session of the
Fifth Round of the Six-Party Talks held in Beijing among the
People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (North Korea), Japan, the Republic of Korea (South
Korea), the Russian Federation, and the United States
relating to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
normalization of relations between North Korea and the United
States, normalization of relations between North Korea and
Japan, economy and energy cooperation, and matters relating
to the Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on environment and public works
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 in room 406 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 9:15 a.m., to hold a hearing on
defense trade cooperation treaties with the United Kingdom and
Australia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Exploring the Skyrocketing
Price of Oil'' on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on rules and administration
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 2 p.m., to hear testimony on
pending nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on rules and administration
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 2:45 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on veterans' affairs
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, to conduct a hearing. The Committee
will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office building, at 9:30
a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on rural revitalization, conservation, forestry and credit
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Subcommittee on Rural
Revitalization, Conservation, Forestry and Credit, be authorized to
meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at
2:30 p.m. in room 332 of the Russell Senate office building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous
consent that LCDR Christopher Martin, a congressional fellow in Senator
Dodd's office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the
debate on H.R. 2642.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alissa Doobay
of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's
session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my
office, LCDR John Croghan, be granted the privilege of the floor for
the remainder of the debate on the supplemental bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THANKING THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND STAFF
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, let me express my appreciation
to you for your patience and, of course, all the staff. We have been
trying to get where we are. It has been a long night. Hopefully, this
is pointing us in the right direction.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--HOUSE MESSAGE ON H.R. 2642
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following any
leader time on Thursday, May 22, the Senate then resume consideration
of the House message on H.R. 2642, and there be 2 hours of debate
equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees;
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the cloture motion with
respect to the Reid motion to concur in House amendment No. 2 with an
amendment be withdrawn, and the Reid second-degree amendment be
withdrawn; that the Senate then proceed to vote on adoption of the
motion to concur in House amendment No. 2 with an amendment; that the
motion to concur be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold, that
if the motion achieves that threshold, it be agreed to, and the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if the motion to concur
fails to achieve 60 votes, it be withdrawn, and Senator Reid be
recognized to move to concur in House amendment No. 2 with an amendment
which is the Webb GI bill; that the motion be subject to an affirmative
60-vote threshold; and that if it achieves that threshold, the motion
to concur be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table: that if it fails to achieve 60 affirmative votes, it be
withdrawn, and the Senate disagree to House amendment No. 2; that upon
disposition of House amendment No. 2, Senator Reid be recognized to
move to concur in House amendment No. 1 with an amendment which is the
text of the committee-reported amendments Nos. 2 and 3 on funding and
Iraq policy; that Senator Sanders then be recognized to make a rule XVI
point of order against section 11312 of the Reid motion; that if the
point of order is sustained, Senator Reid be recognized to move to
concur in House amendment No. 1 with an amendment which is the text of
committee amendments Nos. 2 and 3 minus section 11312; that it be
subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, and that if it achieves
that threshold, it be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table; that if it fails to achieve the 60-vote threshold, it
be withdrawn, and Senator Reid be recognized to move to concur in House
amendment No. 1 with an amendment which is the text of the committee
amendment No. 2 minus section 11312; that the motion be subject to an
affirmative 60-vote threshold; and that if the motion achieves that
threshold, it be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table; if it fails
[[Page 10194]]
to achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn, and the Senate
disagree to House amendment No. 1; that no further points of order be
in order, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President, very much.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. REID. I would now note for everyone within the sound of my voice,
we are still having some problems with the farm bill because of the
enrolling not having been done, as we understand it, in the House. They
failed to enroll one section of the 15 sections. But we are going to
deal with that tomorrow in some detail. And because of that, we will
have to hold up doing the budget until we try to work something out
tomorrow or at some later time.
____________________
SUPPORTING HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE IN SOMALIA
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be discharged from consideration of S. Res. 541
and the Senate proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 541) supporting humanitarian
assistance, protection of civilians, accountability for
abuses in Somalia, and urging concrete progress in line with
the Transitional Federal Charter of Somalia toward the
establishment of a viable government of national unity.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements related to this matter be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 541) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 541
Whereas, despite the formation of the internationally
recognized Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004,
there has been little improvement in the governance or
stability of southern and central Somalia, and stability in
the northern region of Puntland has deteriorated;
Whereas governance failures in Somalia have permitted and
contributed to escalating violence, egregious human rights
abuses, and violations of international humanitarian law,
which occur with impunity and have led to an independent
system of roadblocks, checkpoints, and extortion that hinders
trade, business, and the delivery of desperately needed
humanitarian assistance;
Whereas the Government of Ethiopia intervened in Somalia in
December 2006 against the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and
continues to serve as the primary security force for the TFG
in Somalia;
Whereas a United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia report
presented to the United Nations Security Council on July 20,
2007, alleged that Eritreans have provided arms to insurgents
in Somalia as part of a long-standing dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea that includes a series of interlocking
proxy wars in the Horn of Africa;
Whereas the United Nations estimates that, as of April
2008, 2,000,000 people in Somalia need humanitarian
assistance or livelihood support for at least the next 6
months, including 745,000 people who have fled ongoing
insecurity and sporadic violence in Mogadishu over the past
16 months, adding to more than 275,000 long-term internally
displaced Somalis;
Whereas, despite Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein's public
commitment to humanitarian operations, local and
international aid agencies remain hindered by extortion,
harassment, and administrative obstructions;
Whereas, in March 2008, United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon presented his report on Somalia based on recent
strategic assessments and fact-finding missions, which
offered recommendations for increasing United Nations
engagement while decreasing the presence of foreign troops,
including the establishment of a maritime task force to deter
piracy and support the 1992 international arms embargo;
Whereas the United States Government has allocated nearly
$50,000,000 to support the African Union Mission in Somalia
(AMISOM) and continues to be the leading contributor of
humanitarian assistance in Somalia, with approximately
$140,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2008 to date, but still lacks a comprehensive strategy to
build a sustainable peace;
Whereas, over the last 5 years, the Senate has repeatedly
called upon the President through resolutions, amendments,
bills, oversight letters, and hearings to develop and
implement a comprehensive strategy to contribute to lasting
peace and security throughout the Horn of Africa by helping
to establish a legitimate, stable central government in
Somalia capable of maintaining the rule of law and preventing
Somalia from becoming a safe haven for terrorists;
Whereas a February 2008 Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report entitled, ``Somalia: Several Challenges Limit
U.S. and International Stabilization, Humanitarian, and
Development Efforts'', found that United States and
international ``efforts have been limited by lack of
security, access to vulnerable populations, and effective
government institutions'' as well as the fact that the ``U.S.
strategy for Somalia, outlined in the Administration's 2007
report to Congress on its Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia, is incomplete'';
Whereas the recent designation by the Department of State
of Somali's al Shabaab militia as a foreign terrorist
organization under section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and as a specially designated
global terrorist under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224
(September 23, 2001) highlights the growing need for a
strategic, multifaceted, and coordinated approach to Somalia;
and
Whereas it is in the interest of the United States, the
people of Somalia, and the citizens and governments of
neighboring and other interested countries to work towards a
legitimate peace and a sustainable resolution to the crisis
in Somalia that includes civilian protection and access to
services, upholds the rule of law, and promotes
accountability: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States remains committed to the people of
Somalia and to helping build the institutions necessary for a
stable nation free from civil war and violent extremism;
(2) the President, in partnership with the African Union,
the United Nations, and the international community, should--
(A) provide sufficient humanitarian assistance to those
most seriously affected by armed conflict, drought, and
flooding throughout Somalia, and call on the Transitional
Federal Government to actively facilitate the dispersal of
such assistance;
(B) ensure accountability for all state, non-state, and
external parties responsible for violations of human rights
and international humanitarian law in Somalia, including
through the deployment of United Nations human rights
monitors and the establishment of a United Nations Commission
of Inquiry to investigate abuses;
(C) call on all parties to recommit to an inclusive
dialogue, with international support, in the interest of
promoting sustainable peace and security in Somalia and
across the Horn of Africa;
(D) urge the Government of Ethiopia, in coordination with
the United Nations Political Office in Somalia, to develop a
clear timeline for the responsible withdrawal of its armed
forces from Somalia, to honor its obligation under the Geneva
Conventions to ensure protection of civilians under its
control, and to observe the distinction between civilians and
military combatants and their assets;
(E) urge the Government of Eritrea to play a productive
role in helping to bring about stability to Somalia,
including ceasing to provide any financial and material
support, such as arms and ammunition, to insurgent groups in
and around Mogadishu and throughout the region; and
(F) call on all countries in the region and wider
international community to provide increased support for
AMISOM and ensure a robust civilian protection mandate;
(3) to achieve sustainable peace in the region, the
Transitional Federal Government, including the newly
appointed Prime Minister and his Cabinet, should--
(A) take necessary steps to protect civilians from dangers
related to military operations, investigate and prosecute
human rights abuses, provide basic services to all the people
of Somalia, and ensure that humanitarian organizations have
full access to vulnerable populations;
(B) recommit to the Transitional Federal Charter;
(C) set a detailed timeline and demonstrate observable
progress for completing the political transition laid out in
the Transitional Federal Charter by 2009, including concrete
and immediate steps toward scheduling elections as a means of
establishing a democratically elected government that
represents the people of Somalia; and
(D) agree to participate in an inclusive and transparent
political process, with international support, towards the
formation of a government of national unity based on the
principles of democracy, accountability, and the rule of law.
[[Page 10195]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING CUBA SOLIDARITY DAY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to S. Res. 573.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 573) recognizing Cuba Solidarity Day
and the struggle of the Cuban people as they continue to
fight for freedom.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
____________________
CUBA SOLIDARITY DAY
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I and my colleagues wish to commemorate
Cuba Solidarity Day and the struggle of the Cuban people against a
constant denial of their basic liberties. Yesterday, we marked the day
in 1902 when Cuba won its independence from Spain. Yesterday, we
celebrated the birth of their nation; today, we express our hope that
the island will experience a new birth of freedom. Today, we express
our solidarity with Cuba's political prisoners, democracy advocates,
and human rights activists who risk their lives so that freedom might
live.
About 6 months ago I spoke on the Senate floor with my colleague,
Senator Martinez, to express outrage that 70 Cuban dissidents were
arrested, detained, and harassed. These 70 Cubans, according to the
Cuban regime, had committed the crime of peaceful assembly.
These young people were simply walking down a street in Havana. And
while they were peacefully walking, they had on their arms this
wristband. The simple white wristband says one word; ``cambio''.
Unfortunately, as we have seen for decades from this regime, this
denial of a basic liberty was not an isolated incident.
This regime has been marked by fear and repression for decades. For
decades, they have denied freedom of press, freedom of speech and
freedom to peacefully assemble.
They have refused to hold free and fair elections which represent the
will of the Cuban people.
They have denied the most basic human rights to its citizens.
But decades of fear and repression have also led to acts of courage.
And I stand here today in solidarity with all of the brave Cubans who
have shown such acts of courage.
Currently, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and
Reporters Without Borders, the Cuban regime is holding more than 220
political prisoners.
These heroes continue to sacrifice and fight so that one day the
Cuban people will finally know freedom.
We in the Senate recently introduced a resolution to award a
Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, in recognition of
his courageous and unwavering commitment to democracy, human rights,
and peaceful change in Cuba.
Dr. Biscet's fight serves as an example to all Cubans as well as a
source of inspiration for us here.
Dr. Biscet, the hundreds of political prisoners and all Cubans who
live with daily political repression have shown that Cuba will change.
And this change will come from the Cuban people.
But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do what we
can to empower them. And we must continue to acknowledge them when they
empower themselves.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution to
recognize Cuba Solidarity Day and the struggle of the Cuban people as
they continue to fight for freedom. Cuba Solidarity Day is a call for
the world to join together in the fight against oppression in Cuba. It
is a way of drawing attention to the injustices faced by the people of
Cuba under the current regime and a way of saying that our country
stands together with the Cuban people as they work toward democratic
change.
I believe that it is our country's duty to push for a peaceful
transition to democracy in Cuba. It is a travesty that, more than a
decade after the Cold War ended, a brutal communist dictator is still
oppressing people just miles off the coast of Florida.
The people of Cuba continue to be denied the most basic human rights
and the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. It is estimated that
more than 220 individuals are being held as political prisoners by the
communist regime in Cuba. For the dissidents suffering prison terms,
and for their families and loved ones, their suffering is real. And it
is our duty as a free nation to let them know that we remember them,
that they are not forgotten, and that their suffering is for a purpose.
They must know that the world is watching and that we will not rest and
will not tire and will keep working to support them until they are
finally free.
I am reminded of the story that Natan Sharansky tells about his time
in the Soviet gulag, when word came that President Reagan had called
the Soviet Union an ``Evil Empire.'' For the political prisoners, it
was the first sign that they had not been forgotten. It was a signal to
them that the leader of the world's most powerful democracy had no
illusions about the true nature of that regime, that he knew of their
plight and was ready to call the Soviet system what is was--evil.
This resolution sends a signal to all the dissidents and political
prisoners in Cuba that we have no illusions about the nature of
Castro's brother's brutal regime and that we know of their plight and
stand ready to help them.
I truly believe there is hope. We are witnessing a remarkable time in
history as freedom prevails in places that were once rife with
oppression. As former Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel once said,
``without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be
no free and independent nations.'' It is now time for the world to
voice its support of the Cuban people so they too can rise above the
injustice of the communist regime and finally achieve the freedom and
independence of a democratic nation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 573) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 573
Whereas the Cuban regime continues to deny the basic human
rights of its citizens;
Whereas the Cuban people are denied freedom of the press,
freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceful assembly;
Whereas the Cuban regime refuses to hold free and fair
elections in order to elect a democratic government that
represents the will of the people;
Whereas Freedom House recently rated Cuba as 1 of the 8
most oppressive regimes in the world;
Whereas the Cuban regime is currently holding more than 220
political prisoners according to Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders;
Whereas these prisoners are illegally held in prison
contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
Cuba has signed and recognizes;
Whereas 55 of the 75 political activists imprisoned in the
March 2003 crackdown (known as ``Black Spring'') including
independent journalists and union members, remain in prison;
Whereas the wives of these prisoners, known as the Ladies
in White, continue to be assaulted for simply seeking
information regarding the March 2003 arrests, most recently
on April 21, 2008, when the Ladies in White were violently
dragged from a peaceful sit-in by Cuban officials;
Whereas prisoners face inhuman and unsafe prison
conditions, including the denial of medical treatment; and
Whereas on May 21, 2008 communities around the world will
celebrate Cuba Solidarity Day, a day for the world to join
together in the fight against oppression in Cuba: Now
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) celebrates Cuba Solidarity Day;
(2) recognizes the injustices faced by the people of Cuba
under the current regime; and
(3) stands in solidarity with the Cuban people as they
continue to work towards democratic change in their homeland.
[[Page 10196]]
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, May 22; 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, and the Senate resume
consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 2641, the
supplemental appropriations bill, as under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to a series of up to four rollcall votes beginning shortly
after 11:30 a.m. tomorrow. I am sorry to everyone involved that we
didn't have this finalized earlier, but we were unable to do it any
sooner.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 9:29 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, May 22, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 10197]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The House met at 10 a.m.
Rev. Fred Lucci, Director, All Saints Catholic Newman Center, Arizona
State University, offered the following prayer:
Gracious and loving God, creator and source of everything that is
good, You have blessed us in ways beyond anything we could have
imagined for ourselves. Please always keep us mindful that every good
thing we have, every possession, every talent, every relationship, our
health and very life itself is a gift from You. Mindful of these
blessings, make us always-generous people in Your own image.
Look now upon this assembly and fill them with the spirit of Your
wisdom. May every decision they make reflect Your goodness, promote and
protect the dignity of every member of our society, especially the
weakest and most vulnerable among us, and be for the peace and well-
being of all.
Finally, loving God, we place into Your healing hands our brother,
Senator Edward Kennedy. Please give him strength and comfort him, his
family, and all who love him.
We ask You this in hope, Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill and a concurrent
resolution of the House of the following titles:
H.R. 2517. An act to amend the Missing Children's
Assistance Act to authorize appropriations; and for other
purposes.
H. Con. Res. 354. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
100th birthday of Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th President,
designer of the Great Society, politician, educator, and
civil rights enforcer.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill and a
concurrent resolution of the following titles in which the concurrence
of the House is requested:
S. 431. An act to require convicted sex offenders to
register online identifiers, and for other purposes.
S. Con Res. 79. 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.
____________________
WELCOMING FATHER FRED LUCCI
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Mitchell) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, my guest today, Father Fred Lucci, is
the Director of the All Saints Catholic Newman Center in Tempe, which I
have attended for more than 40 years.
I am proud Father Fred, as those of us in Tempe call him, could join
us today because he is my pastor and my friend. In fact, he is a friend
and mentor to the thousands of parishioners at the Newman Center.
Father Fred has a good heart and a special gift. While it may be easy
to provide guidance to long-time parishioners like myself, Father Fred
continues to have a positive influence on the lives of thousands of
students at Arizona State.
In the 1980s, freshman Fred Lucci arrived at Arizona State
University's campus with a music scholarship and his clarinet. His
ability to connect with students has endured today. Today, Father Fred
is a fixture on campus, easily recognized, eager to listen, and always
faithful and helpful in guiding students to strengthen their own
spiritual relationships. He has led humanitarian missions and
pilgrimages that have lifted the souls of all who participate.
Throughout his years in the priesthood, Father Fred has helped
students who need it most find their strength within. In the process,
he has made Arizona State a more compassionate campus one student at a
time. And he has built a parish that has helped shape Tempe into a more
decent and caring community.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for
1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
POLITICALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT SPEECH--IN EUROPE
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is one of the most basic of
all human rights. However, more and more European countries are
arresting individuals for insult speech. Speech to be free must allow
individuals to criticize religion and government.
The first amendment protecting speech and press is first because it's
the most important. But in Europe, speech must be politically and
religiously correct. Criticize or insult another person's religion and
you're likely to be hauled off to prison thanks to the speech police.
After all, heaven forbid, offensive or insult speech may hurt
somebody's feelings.
In Germany, an insult to a religion can be a crime worthy of
imprisonment. Recently, a 61-year-old German businessman was convicted
and sent to jail for offending Islam. The same thing happened in
Britain where Nick Griffin was prosecuted for describing Islam as a
``vicious and wicked faith.''
Free speech must be universal. If controversial issues like religion
and politics cannot be debated in countries, the people are not free,
even in Europe.
Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``Free speech, exercised both individually
and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people
are themselves free.''
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
THE DOLLAR IS WEAKENING
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. The great amount of borrowing this country is doing
from nations like China, Japan and Korea is weakening our dollar. Many
of us know that we're borrowing money from China to prosecute a war in
Iraq.
So with a weakened dollar, we're seeing a contribution here to the
increased cost of crude oil. The weaker the dollar, the higher the
price of crude oil. Today, the price of crude oil is about $130 a
barrel. We're looking at gasoline this summer perhaps as much as $5 a
gallon.
We need to change our economic direction. We need to strengthen our
dollar. We need to change our monetary
[[Page 10198]]
policy and stop borrowing. We need to go after these oil companies, not
only in international courts with antitrust action, but we need a
windfall profits tax. And if that fails, we need to have an honest
discussion in this country about why we let the oil companies control
the economy anyway.
Why don't we start looking at ways to take back the power of the
people so that we can have control of our own destiny?
____________________
COUNTY PAYMENTS: HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON
(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, by refusing to renew the county
payments program, Congress has broken its promise to rural, timbered
America.
I've told you in the past about Harney County, a county that has 78
percent of its land mass, the size of New Jersey, all Federally
controlled, 70 percent of its road budget affected by this law that has
not been reauthorized.
Let me tell you today about Hood River County, where Congress'
failure to act to renew the county timber payments program has forced
this county to develop multiple county budgets because we don't know
what's going to happen in my home county. One thing is for sure,
though, the county annually uses up to $130,000 of Federal forest
payments to fund search and rescue operations in the Mount Hood
National Forest and Mount Hood itself. You see, Hood River County is
responsible for most of the search and rescue operations on that great
mountain, and now those costs will be borne by the county because the
Federal Government is shirking its responsibility.
That could change. We could pass H.R. 3058, a bill to reauthorize
county timber payments. It has been on the Union Calendar for 127 days,
held hostage by this leadership. The Democratic leadership refuses to
bring it up for a vote.
Make good on the Federal promise. Let us vote on H.R. 3058.
____________________
THE HOUSING CRISIS
(Mr. HODES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, with nearly 8,000 foreclosures being filed
daily, there is no question that Americans continue to fear losing
their homes. In my home State of New Hampshire, it is predicted that
nearly 4,300 families will lose their home by 2009.
This month, the House passed landmark housing legislation that will
address the housing crisis directly, stabilize the housing market, and
make a real difference for families at risk of losing their home. The
bill will also help revitalize communities that have become vacant
because of high housing foreclosure rates.
We are also working to provide relief to families struggling under
the burden of higher gas prices and soaring costs for food and health
care.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot fix our struggling economy until we address
the housing crisis, but the Bush administration has ignored this
growing problem for far too long.
I hope that President Bush and his allies will reconsider their
opposition to our commonsense housing package so we can provide hope to
the millions of Americans struggling in President Bush's recession.
____________________
{time} 1015
IN MEMORY OF SERGEANT FIRST CLASS GEORGE KOON
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I had the
honor of attending a memorial service celebrating the life of Sergeant
First Class George Walter Koon. Sergeant Koon was a soldier of the
United States Army Infantry during the Korean War. He was a POW
murdered while in captivity in 1951, but his body remained unrecovered
for over half a century. It was not until recently that the hard work
of his family and the Department of Defense helped positively identify
Sergeant Koon and return him from North Korea to his family in
Leesville, South Carolina.
The life and story of Sergeant Koon is an example of tremendous
courage and commitment. His brother Reverend Carl Koon correctly stated
that ``freedom isn't cheap and it isn't free.'' His sacrifice and that
of his fellow American soldiers will never be forgotten to liberate
dozens of countries so that more people today live in free market
democracy than ever in the history of the world.
The memorial service was conducted by Reverend John McKeown and
Reverend George A. Koon, nephew namesake of the deceased hero, at the
Old Lexington Baptist Church of Leesville. He received full military
honors.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th.
____________________
IN HONOR OF B'NAI ISRAEL AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT, FOR
THEIR OUTSTANDING COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS
(Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in 1937 the residents of
Southbury, a small town in Connecticut, came together to prevent the
German American Bund, a group of pro-Nazi German Americans, from
establishing a paramilitary training facility in their town.
Led by Rev. Felix Manley of the Southbury Federated Church and Rev.
M.E.N. Lindsay of the South Britain Congressional Church, the town of
Southbury passed its first zoning law to ban the use of land in
Southbury for paramilitary training.
As a great Jewish writer once said, ``The opposite of love is not
hate, it is indifference.'' Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great sense of
pride to represent the town of Southbury, where this May 31, 2008, the
congregation of B'nai Israel will host the Human Rights Festival,
honoring the courageous acts of those citizens some 71 years ago and
renewing the town's commitment to justice. The proud legacy of the
religious community in Southbury and the work of B'nai Israel to
recognize that legacy serve as a reminder to all of us that change and
progress must come from the bottom up.
____________________
NBC SHOWS BIAS
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week NBC News aired an
interview with President Bush in which it removed key statements from
the President's response to a question about diplomatic relations with
Iran.
While some editing is to be expected, in this case NBC misrepresented
the President's response so that it appeared he agreed with the premise
of the question when, in fact, he explicitly disputed it.
The White House says NBC's ``deceitful editing'' was intended to
perpetuate a ``media-manufactured storyline'' about Iran.
The American people deserve to know the President's complete
statements on major foreign policy issues. We rely on journalists to
provide this information through fair and impartial reporting. The
American people rightfully expect the media to give them all the facts,
not just a slanted version.
____________________
THE GI BILL
(Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, without the 1944 GI Bill, I would
not be standing here today.
The GI Bill educated my dad after he came home from World War II. And
today is his 86th birthday; so happy birthday, Dad.
[[Page 10199]]
The GI Bill paid for his tuition, his room, his books, some living
expenses. It paid for his college degree. It helped him lift our family
from the Depression into the middle class, and it offered my two
brothers and me a brighter future.
Millions of Americans have stories that are just like mine. In all of
the many ways that America shows gratitude to our veterans, the GI Bill
has to be one of the greatest.
I was honored last week to vote to extend and to renew the GI Bill to
the new generation of veterans that are coming home. The GI Bill was
always meant to be a permanent promise, a contract with our soldiers, a
bill of rights for our veterans. And I certainly urge the Senate and
the President to pass this bill into law as soon as possible.
Happy birthday, Dad.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMY R. GULLETT
(Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to
Army Specialist Jeremy R. Gullett from Greenup, Kentucky, a dedicated
soldier who lost his life on May 7, 2008, in the Sabari District of
Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 320th Field
Artillery Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division based out of Fort
Campbell, Kentucky.
According to his mother, Cheryl, Jeremy had dreamed of joining the
service since he was 6 years old. While attending Greenup County High
School, Specialist Gullett was a member of the school's Junior ROTC
program. He joined the Army in 2003, shortly after graduating from high
school. Jeremy was a model citizen. Not only did he serve our country
abroad, he was also a volunteer fireman; a loving father to his two
young daughters, Kaye and Katie; and a dedicated husband to his wife,
Janeth.
Today, as we celebrate the life and accomplishments of this
exceptional Kentuckian, my thoughts and prayers are with Jeremy
Gullett's family and friends. We are all deeply indebted to Specialist
Gullett for his service and sacrifice.
____________________
DEMOCRATS CONTINUE FIGHT TO LOWER GAS PRICES
(Mr. ALTMIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, with gas prices reaching a new record high
every day, Congress took strong action last week to bring down the
price at the pump by passing legislation to suspend filling the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of this year.
After initially opposing the proposal, President Bush signed the bill
into law yesterday. He had the power all along to stop filling the SPR,
but it took an act of Congress to push him to take this commonsense
step, a step that could lower gas prices by up to 24 cents a gallon.
While the Bush administration has allowed crude oil to rise from $25
a gallon when he first took office to $130 a gallon today, the
Democratic Congress is fighting to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, bring down record gas prices, and launch a cleaner, smarter energy
future for America.
Today this House will consider legislation that will retain and
create hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs and encourage the use
of production of renewable energy. While President Bush continues to
call for more of the same policies that have failed for the past 7
years, this Democratic Congress is working for an energy independence
plan for America.
____________________
MAIN STREET USA ENERGY INDEPENDENCE SECURITY ACT
(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am tired of the
majority party talking about introducing a commonsense plan for our
growing energy crisis. Common sense or not, I'd be happy to look at
their plan if they had one. But they don't. They have demonstrated to
families who are wasting their money on the price of gasoline that they
have failed to come up with a plan.
I don't want to let those families down, Mr. Speaker, and I don't
want them to think that Members of Congress are sitting on their hands
doing nothing that's affecting their cost of living. So last week I
helped Congressman Buyer announce the Main Street USA Energy
Independence Security Act of 2008.
This plan will help solve our national security problem and guide us
away from being reliant on international energy sources. It will also
open up domestic exploration on our own soil to find energy sources
here at home.
The best thing about the Main Street Energy Act is that it is a plan.
And let's put the plan to work now.
____________________
GAS PRICES
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the phones in my office have
been ringing off the hook. Constituents are hopping mad about the
skyrocketing price of gasoline.
In Dallas in just the last month, the price for a gallon of gas has
jumped 30 cents. And that's in Texas, where we drill and explore on
land and along the coast.
It's about time for the Congress to take action. In fact, it's past
time.
Two-thirds of the oil we use comes from foreign countries. We have
oil and gas in the United States, but we have to be willing to move
forward with exploration. Congress should allow exploration in Alaska,
along the eastern seaboard, the west coast, and allow more refineries
to be built.
The answer to rising gas prices is right here in America. We have the
technology. We have the resources. The time is now. Democrats in
Congress need to step aside and let the ingenuity of Americans solve
this problem today.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF THE LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program.
LIHEAP, which provides crucial heating and cooling assistance to
millions of hardworking, low-income families all across America, grows
more important as fuel prices continue to skyrocket and we head toward
another hot summer. Already families who qualify for LIHEAP spend, on
average, a fifth of their income on energy costs. For hundreds of
thousands of Americans, that figure will continue to rise until the
electricity is simply shut off.
Still, rather than rising to the occasion, this government has backed
away from our responsibilities to those families. Even as prices soar
and LIHEAP applicants have increased by 20 percent, the average LIHEAP
grant has dropped by 20 percent, leaving millions without the full
assistance to which they are entitled and millions more without any
help at all.
In my hometown of Louisville, I hear from people who work hard every
day with less to show for it. Seniors, who deserve to live out their
golden years comfortably, now face the choice of paying for medicine,
food, or energy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for this
crucial program so that millions of LIHEAP-qualifying Americans won't
be left alone to face potentially life-threatening heat this summer.
____________________
ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY
(Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate Armenian Remembrance
Day and remember the 1.5 million Armenians annihilated during the
[[Page 10200]]
final years of the Ottoman Empire, to recognize the 60th anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to reflect on the
continuing violence in places like Darfur, Kenya, and Zimbabwe.
In addition to the genocide of Armenians, the 20th Century bore
witness to the loss of 6 million Jews and 400,000 other persons deemed
``nondesirable'' by the Nazis and the modern-day horrors in Cambodia
and Rwanda. Unfortunately, and all too often, we have not learned from
past genocides. A vicious circle of noninvolvement and noninterference
continues.
Today I wish to recall the past in order to bring about hope for a
brighter, more peaceful future and reconciliation of the people of
Armenia and Turkey. Only through a thorough examination of history and
open acknowledgment of the past will the plight of the Armenians be
fully understood.
And as we continue confronting atrocities taking place today and seek
to prevent them from occurring in the future, we must also be resolute
in acknowledging genocides of the past.
____________________
THANKING REPUBLICANS FOR SUPPORTING THE NO OIL PRODUCING AND EXPORTING
CARTELS ACT OF 2008
(Mr. KAGEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle and in particular Representatives Ryan,
Sensenbrenner, and Petri from Wisconsin for joining me in passing this
bill yesterday. It's called the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels Act of 2008.''
For 7 years the Cheney and Bush administration has done nothing,
nothing at all to break up the oil cartels overseas. They have done
nothing to reduce the cost of our gasoline at the pump. And wherever I
have been in Wisconsin, from Green Bay to Appleton, from Marinette to
Minocqua, and everywhere I go in northeast Wisconsin, people are
saying, ``Kagen, there are two things you can do to put more money in
my pocket: Cut the cost of gasoline and reduce our health care costs.''
And this bill, voted on and supported by 103 Republicans in a
bipartisan manner, will help to do just that. It will make it illegal
for anyone to conspire to raise our price of gasoline.
Thank you, thank you, my Republicans, for supporting me in this act.
____________________
{time} 1030
EXPAND OIL PRODUCTION
(Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I was driving my 14-year-old son to school
this morning, listening to the radio, and it mentioned that the price
of oil had increased to over $130 a barrel. My son said, Dad, why don't
we just tell OPEC to produce more oil? I thought about it and I said,
Well, son, as a matter of fact, President Bush was over in Saudi Arabia
the other day and asked if Saudi Arabia would increase its output.
But I suspect that the leaders of OPEC might turn that question
around on the United States and say, Why doesn't the United States
increase its output of oil?
The answer is Democrats have blocked every commonsense effort to
expand production in this country for years now, and it's time for that
opposition to stop and face reality. We need a balanced energy program
in this country, one that recognizes that for the immediate future we
are going to need oil and gas, and, yes, we need to develop alternative
fuel sources as well. But you can't do just one. You have to do both.
____________________
CYBERBULLYING
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
address a growing national trend, cyberbullying.
Many of us know of the dangers our kids already face online:
predators, fraud, and sexually explicit material. Now children are also
facing online bullying. When a young person is ridiculed or threatened
online, it can have severe and even tragic effects.
A perfect case in point is Megan Meier, a St. Louis teenager who made
friends with a young man named Josh online. The friendship soon
deteriorated, with Josh telling Megan, ``The world would be better off
without you.'' Megan Meier committed suicide.
Six weeks after Megan's death came the horrifying news that Josh was
actually just an alias created by the mother of one of Megan's former
friends. At the time of Megan's death, cyberbullying was not considered
a crime. The adult responsible for the hoax went unpunished. Recently,
Federal charges were filed, but the prosecutor had to be creative
because Federal law is inadequate. That is wrong.
Congress must act soon to send a clear message: Online actions have
offline consequences.
____________________
WAR FUNDING BILLS SHOULD BE ABOUT WAR FUNDING
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I think war funding bills ought to be about war funding.
Last week, the Democrat Congress tried and failed to pass an Iraq
funding bill by piling billions of dollars in unrelated domestic
spending and higher taxes on the backs of our soldiers. But because
House Republicans took a stand, the American people could plainly see
that the majority of the majority is willing to cut off funding to our
soldiers, even when they are in harm's way.
With Memorial Day just around the corner, this Congress should stop
playing politics with funding for our troops. We should pass a clean
Iraq funding bill, legislation authored by Representative Jerry Lewis
of California, and we should pass it this week. As we prepare to
remember the heroes of conflicts past, let's make sure that today's
heroes have the resources they need to get the job done and come home
safe.
____________________
DEMOCRATS PUT TROOPS AND VETERANS FIRST WITH NEW GI BILL
(Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, last week, Congress, with strong Democratic
support, passed the new GI Bill, which provides all veterans of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars the promise of a full 4-year college
scholarship. The bill makes veterans a part of the American economic
recovery.
The original GI Bill in 1944 allowed millions of families to achieve
the American Dream. It also set our economy on the right course after
World War II. For every dollar spent on the GI Bill, $7 were returned
to the economy. A similar economic spark is needed today. You would
think that the new GI Bill would gain the support of President Bush.
But he opposes it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of House
Republicans opposed the bill when it was on the floor last week. We
must make sure that the brave men and women that we are sending off to
battle have everything they need and deserve when they return home.
Mr. Speaker, House Democrats vow to never leave a veteran behind
after returning from war by ensuring that they receive the quality care
and benefits they have earned. That includes living up to the promise
of providing them access to quality higher education.
____________________
PIONEER MIDDLE SCHOOL
(Mr. KUHL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pioneer
Middle School located in Yorkshire, New
[[Page 10201]]
York. Last month, Pioneer Middle School was recognized as one of two
Essential Elementary Schools to Watch in New York State. Pioneer is the
first middle school in western New York to achieve this prestigious
honor. Presently, only 10 middle schools in all of New York State have
achieved this recognition over the past 4 years.
This award exemplifies the talent and dedication that these educators
and parents demonstrate every day. The school has shown tremendous
progress since being named a School in Need of Improvement by the
Department of Education in 2004.
As these teachers, students, and parents gather to celebrate this
wonderful accomplishment, I want to offer my sincere congratulations.
Let the Pioneer Middle School serve as a beacon for schools around the
Nation to see that excellence and success comes from devoted teachers
and parents.
____________________
NATIONAL TEACHERS DAY
(Mr. PERLMUTTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, last week, we celebrated National
Teachers Day. That day represents one small token of our Nation's
gratitude for the long hours and hard work our teachers endure to
prepare our students for future endeavors. As a product of the
Jefferson County, Colorado public schools, I can attest to the
wonderful influence educators have had on my life, as well as on the
lives of my three daughters.
I believe we as a Nation cannot thank enough our men and women
currently serving in our public education system, such as my sister
Cassie, for all that they do. I particularly want to take a moment to
recognize the teachers in Adams, Arapahoe, and Jefferson County,
Colorado, who enrich the education of our children and have a positive
impact on our communities.
We must continue to invest in our public schools and colleges and
ensure our educators have the tools and resources they need to give our
children the high quality education to succeed in this increasingly
competitive economy. Our teachers are dedicated, valuable public
servants whom we owe a sincere debt of gratitude.
____________________
WAITING FOR AN ENERGY PLAN
(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the Democrats have had
control of the Congress now for a year and a half. We are still waiting
for an energy plan. We are going to celebrate Memorial Day this
weekend. We are still waiting for an energy plan. What have the
Democrats done so far as an energy plan? Well, let's just take a look
at it.
This is a spoon from the House cafeteria. They bought this spoon at
great expense to the taxpayers, and it is a green spoon. In fact, it
melts in your coffee. This is Exhibit 1. What have the Democrats done
when gas is $4? Well, go down to the gift store and you will see these
Green the Capitol bags. So now we have, at greater expense to the
taxpayer, printed these little Green the Capitol bags.
Now what is the centerpiece of their energy policy when you're going
to pay $4 a gallon and more around the country for gasoline? They are
going to change the light and green the light on the top of the
Capitol. Just the study, I'm told, is going to be $800,000, and then
millions of dollars. And $4 gas.
____________________
DEMOCRATS HELP AMERICANS WHO HAVE BEEN HURT DURING ECONOMIC RECESSION
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the economic recession has been
particularly hard on lower- and middle-income families. But over the
last month, this House has passed important legislation that will make
a real difference in their lives. These families were already having
trouble squeezing enough money out of their monthly paychecks to pay
for the basic necessities. Now imagine how much more difficult that is
with the dramatic increases in the cost of foods like bread, milk and
eggs.
Last week, in strong bipartisan fashion, this House passed a final
farm bill that invests an additional $10.4 billion in nutrition
programs so that 38 million American families do not have to go hungry.
Our constituents are also rightfully concerned about their jobs. Over
the last 4 months alone, 260,000 jobs have been lost. Finding a new job
is not necessarily easy in today's economy. That is why this House
passed an extension of unemployment benefits last week, giving
unemployed workers an additional 13 weeks to find a job.
Mr. Speaker, this Democratic House is delivering results that will
benefit families that have been forgotten for far too long.
____________________
ROADMAP FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE
(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a roadmap
for America's future, legislation to transform our Federal Government,
to reform the Nation's health care entitlements, Social Security, and
the Federal Tax Code. My legislation does three things: It fulfills the
mission of health and retirement security for all Americans by making
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid permanently solvent. Second, it
lifts the massive debt burden off of future generations. Third, it
promotes solid, sustained economic growth and job creation, and puts
the U.S. in a position to lead, not merely to survive in the global
marketplace.
This is a real plan, with real proposals, with real numbers to back
them up, and real legislation to implement it. I recognize that this is
an ambitious proposal. Not everyone's going to agree with every part of
it. That is fine. These problems are not Democratic problems and they
are not Republican problems, and neither are the solutions.
We need to build bipartisan support for action in Congress. If
nothing else, it is my sincere hope that this will spur Congress to
move beyond simply rehashing the problem, to debating and implementing
actual solutions for the American people.
____________________
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times today has got an article
predicting $200 a barrel for crude oil in the not-too-distant-future.
The laws of supply and demand, the economic law of supply and demand
works. This House, led by this majority, has passed bill after bill
after bill whose intent and whose implication is to increase the costs
to generate energy, whether its electricity or gasoline. Those policies
specifically demand higher prices. If there was a cheaper way to
generate electricity or drive our cars, we would already be using those
cheaper methods.
So the policies are to raise the prices, and the twisted logic is
they then come down here and speaker after speaker gripes and complains
about those exact high prices, which is the direct result of what their
policies are putting in place.
Yesterday, in a staggering twist of illogic, is to pass, as a part of
that bill that was passed yesterday, to unleash our Department of
Justice on the very producers that we are trying to incent to produce
more crude oil and natural gas on an unfettered witch hunt that will
cost millions and millions of dollars and result in absolutely zero.
It's wrong policy. The American people need to speak up.
____________________
FREE OUR RESOURCES
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
[[Page 10202]]
Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, free our resources. Our families have to
pay $4, almost $4 a gallon to fill up. They are spending $70 just to
fill up mid-size cars. We can't take this anymore, but yet we have the
resources right here within the United States, whether it's offshore,
Alaska, oil shale in Colorado that has been taken off and we can't
drill in it. Today, we are going to do tax credits, 1 year of tax
credits, that are going to be meaningless to develop biofuels and
cellulosic ethanol.
So we have the resources here, my friends, to decrease the price at
the pumps by adding more supply, and it's being blocked. It's being
blocked by the leadership here. Free up our resources, Madam Speaker.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). Members are reminded to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6049, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB
CREATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1212
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
6049) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend
certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax
relief, 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. 6049 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.
{time} 1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate
purposes only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask
unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1212.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1212 provides for
consideration of H.R. 6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on
Ways and Means and waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R.
6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which will not only
bring this country into a new alternative energy future, but strengthen
our economy by directing fiscally responsible tax relief to middle
class families, creating jobs at small businesses in the very towns and
rural communities where we need it the most.
The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a
number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class
families and small businesses, including deductions for State and local
sales tax, tuition education expenses, and expanding the child tax
credit and research and development tax credit.
During these uncertain economic times, it is also absolutely critical
that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term
development for tomorrow, including alternative energy like wind and
biomass that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and
bring the price of gas at the pump to a level families and businesses
can afford. The best way to encourage growth and development of new
technology is to let businesses invest their own money in ways that
expand our economic horizons. Tax credits for alternative energy
production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create
good paying, highly skilled jobs that can't be sent overseas.
In my upstate New York district, our location, natural resources,
renowned colleges and universities and world class scientific and
technological companies perfectly poise our community to seize this
opportunity to create a new green economy, complete with green jobs.
I have spoken numerous times throughout the debate over how to extend
these renewable tax credits and about the new businesses in my district
that are utilizing the national investment in alternative energy to
create good paying jobs in upstate New York. Those businesses are to be
commended, and that is why I am proud to support nearly $20 billion in
long-term clean renewable energy tax incentives and investment included
in the Energy and Job Creation Act. I hope that doing so will encourage
other companies to follow suit, both in our region and across this
great Nation.
The underlying legislation extends and modifies critical tax credits
for the production of electricity from renewable sources ranging from
wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed-loop and open-loop biomass.
It would also extend clean renewable energy bonds, efficient commercial
building tax incentives, investment tax credit for solar and fuel cell
systems, tax credit for energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes,
tax credits for production of efficient home appliances and tax
incentives for consumer purchases of energy efficient products. Most of
these incentives either expired at the end of last year or are set to
expire at the end of this year. It is vitally important to sustaining
the development of clean energy technology industries that these
incentives are extended.
H.R. 6049 also includes an extension of the research and development
tax credit that allows companies a tax credit for a portion of their
research and development expenditures. Extending the R&D credit is
vital to ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of
innovation that keeps our companies competitive and working here, not
offshore. This credit is of particular interest to the area that I
represent because its extension will further the expansion of the
microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are beginning
to blossom in our region.
American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuity to
adequately plan their long-term research projects. I support this 1-
year extension to provide that continuity and I will continue to work
with leaders on the committee and in this body to seek a permanent
extension that would eliminate concerns over expirations and lapses.
The bill also extends important tax credits for individuals, as well
as creating new and expanded credits. It extends for 1 year the
personal income tax deductions for tuition and education expenses, the
State and local sales taxes, and teachers' out-of-pocket expenses for
classroom supplies. The bill creates a new standard deduction for up to
$700 for couples to cover State and local property taxes, and expands
the eligibility for the refundable child tax credit. Under the child
tax credit, certain low-income taxpayers can claim a refundable tax
credit equal to 15 percent of their earned income above an inflation-
adjusted threshold. In 2008,
[[Page 10203]]
this threshold is set to be $12,050, but under H.R. 6049 that threshold
will be reduced to $8,500, providing increased relief to more than 12
million families with children nationwide.
Supporting H.R. 6049 comes down to simple common sense. We can create
tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from
hostile regimes, reduce greenhouse gases, spur innovation and provide
tax relief to middle class families, and we can do it all--and let me
emphasize this--all of those things, without adding to the national
deficit.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule
and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
and friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule marks the 60th time that the leaders of this
Congress have totally closed down the House floor by refusing to allow
any Member of this House to offer an amendment to a bill pending and
have it debated and voted upon. This is more closed rules than any
Congress in the history of our country, which is exactly the opposite
of the promise that the Democrat leaders made to the American people
when they promised to run the most open and honest House ever.
The House is not open when no amendments are allowed to be offered
and when a Republican alternative is blocked from even a minute of
debate and denied a vote on the House floor. And it is not in the most
honest House when the Rules Committee Democrats block the Republican
plan to prevent tax increases from being considered, using the excuse
that it doesn't meet House PAYGO rules, especially, Mr. Speaker, when
it was just one week ago that the same Democrats were blatantly
violating PAYGO rules by billions of dollars in the farm bill. Under
this liberal Congress, it is only okay to break the House rules,
apparently, when you are increasing spending by billions of dollars,
but not by preventing tax increases on the American people.
The Republican plan that was denied, that the Democrats refused to
allow the House to vote upon, would provide the following: 1 year of
relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT; a 2-year extension
of the State and local sales tax deduction for those States that do not
have a State income tax; 2 more years for the research and development
tax credit; 2 years for the tuition tax credit; and extensions for more
expiring tax provisions.
This Democrat bill, for example, does absolutely nothing, nothing at
all, to fix the AMT tax for 2008. Twenty-one million middle class
individuals will pay an additional $61.5 billion in higher taxes next
April if the AMT is not fixed and addressed. That is an average of over
$2,800 per affected taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. The Republican plan fully
fixes it, but today that fix is not even allowed to be considered on
the House floor. Instead, the House is given one choice, and that is a
fool's choice bargain to raise taxes by $54 billion in order to simply
extend existing tax policies that are due to expire.
Mr. Speaker, current provisions in tax law are expiring, and Congress
needs to act to keep these taxes from going up. But, Mr. Speaker, we
all know that is no excuse to raise other taxes by billions of dollars.
I and many of my Republican colleagues support a great number of the
tax relief extensions included in this bill, including the State and
local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit,
education and tuition tax credits, tax credits for teachers, and
several renewable income tax credits. These low tax policies have been
law for many years, Mr. Speaker, and they have been extended multiple
times, multiple times, and always without raising taxes.
My Democrat colleagues will try to defend their tax-raising ways by
invoking the PAYGO rules they ignored just last week. They will claim
that this is just being responsible and it is not about increasing the
national debt, that it is about government living within its means.
If only that were true, Mr. Speaker. But it is not. All you have to
do is to read the final budget plan for next year that this House will
vote on later today. Their budget reveals this Congress as what they
truly are, and what they truly are, Mr. Speaker, is old time tax-and-
spend liberals. In their budget, spending increases by $250 billion
over the next 5 years. They increase the debt limit in 2008 by $654
billion, which is the largest increase in history, and they raise taxes
by $683 billion, which is the largest amount in American history. More
spending, higher debt, record tax increases. That is obviously the plan
of this liberal Congress.
Now, my Democrat colleagues will also try to claim the tax increases
that are in this bill aren't really that bad. But the facts are the
facts, and the facts are that this bill unnecessarily increases taxes
by over $50 billion. And that is just the beginning. Remember that
their budget would increase taxes by over two-thirds of a trillion
dollars. If they aren't raising your taxes this time in this bill, I
can assure you, your time is coming. They will get you the next time.
When this liberal Congress imposes the largest tax increase in
American history to pay for more government spending, don't think that
you can escape permanently their tax-and-spend ways. Their tax increase
plans include cutting the child tax credit, cutting that in half;
reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax; and a tax increase
for every single American taxpayer. It would even levy taxes on low-
income workers who currently pay none.
But if there is a ray of sunshine, and there always is a ray of
sunshine in bills, there is a newly created tax break, one that will
put a big smile on the faces of some in this country, and it is worth
over $1.5 billion.
{time} 1100
The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this new tax break is only for
trial lawyers. So the only people who will be smiling are the trial
lawyers and presumably the Democrats that they give tens of millions of
dollars in campaign contributions to each year.
Under this bill, the American taxpayers will be subsidizing
speculative lawsuits by trial lawyers to the tune of $1.5 billion. This
special interest tax break will allow trial lawyers to make special
arrangements that essentially allow them to gamble on lawsuits where
they get paid on contingency fees if they win. Meanwhile, taxpayers
will be footing the bill for trial lawyers writing off the expenses of
conducting these ``sue them and see what we can win'' lawsuits. Count
me among those, Mr. Speaker, who believe we already have too many
lawsuits in this country and that we shouldn't be inventing new special
tax breaks that may and probably will encourage more lawsuits. Our
justice system can operate fairly, as it has done so for many years,
without having to give special tax treatment to trial lawyers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically mention the extension of
the State and local sales tax deduction that is included in this bill.
For nearly 20 years, Americans who paid State income taxes could deduct
those taxes from their Federal tax bill, while Americans who paid State
sales taxes but had no State income tax were not allowed to do so.
In 2006, the Republican Congress restored the sales tax deduction
after years of bipartisan effort from the congressional delegations of
the affected States, including my home State of Washington. The initial
reinstatement of the deduction was for 2 years, 2004 and 2005. In 2006,
the Republican Congress extended the sales tax deduction for 2 more
years, 2006 and 2007. That deduction has now expired, and this
deduction does not exist for this year, 2008.
Efforts last year to extend this deduction and ensure it didn't
expire were unfortunately blocked by the Democrat leaders. I regret
that the extension provided for the sales tax deduction in this bill is
for 1 year only.
Mr. Speaker, this is a step backwards. This deduction has been
extended 2 years each time in the past,
[[Page 10204]]
and it should be extended 2 years now. Otherwise, we face expiring in
about 6 months from now because, as I mentioned, there is no sales tax
deduction for the calendar year 2008. So if we are to pass this and it
were to be signed into law, we would have 6 months on it from right
now. The bipartisan Senate bill introduced last month by the chairman
and ranking member of the Finance Committee includes a 2-year extension
of this sales tax deduction.
The Republican plan that House leaders and the Rules Committee last
night blocked from being considered and debated on the floor today
provided for a 2-year extension. An amendment was filed with the Rules
Committee by Mr. Brady of Texas which also would have extended the
deduction for 2 years, but that too was blocked by the Rules Committee
from being debated on this floor.
It is very unfortunate that this bill moves sales tax deduction
fairness backwards, not forwards. Taxpayers in income tax States have a
permanent tax deduction, and taxpayers in sales tax States that have no
State income tax deserve, in my view, equal treatment. The sales tax
deduction should be made into permanent law. Even though I think a 2-
year extension is better than 1, it should be made permanent. At the
very least, they deserve at least a 2-year extension.
What really is more upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill could
have provided very easily under existing PAYGO rules a 2-year
extension. The over $1.5 billion cost of the tax deduction given to
trial lawyers could instead have been used to give a 1-year extension
of the sales tax deduction for those States.
So this bill chooses to create a new billion-plus-dollar tax cut for
trial lawyers over tax fairness for the millions of residents in the
State of Washington, my State, the State of Florida, the States of
Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Mr. Speaker, I have supported every bill that has passed this House
to reinstate and extend the State sales tax deduction, but none of
these bills, none of these bills that extended that was being held
hostage for another tax cut for another special interest.
Restoring and continuing the State sales tax deduction is a matter of
fairness. The residents of sales tax States shouldn't have their fair
treatment conditioned upon passing huge tax increases.
The rule that is currently before the House and the underlying bill
reveal this Congress for what it really is. The rule is totally closed
and does not allow debate or a vote on any amendments or an alternative
Republican plan. It violates Speaker Pelosi's promise to the American
people to run an open and honest House. The bill itself is just the
opening act of a move to impose the largest tax increase in history on
the American people. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress the only
tax bill allowed on the floor of the House is one that will raise
taxes. Under this liberal Congress, tax relief is a myth and tax
increases are a certainty. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress,
Americans will be sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars to
Washington, DC so this Congress can increase spending and the size of
the Federal Government.
My colleagues should oppose this closed rule and this tax increase
bill. We should demand a clean tax relief extension bill that doesn't
include new tax breaks for trial lawyers and over $50 billion in tax
increases. This bill we know will never pass the Senate, and it will
never be signed into law, if on the slim chance that it should pass
both Houses and be sent to the President. Raising taxes right now on
the American economy is simply the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one point. Some
people in this institution tend to talk about trial lawyers and seem to
want to point out the things that they do that they think aren't good.
But no one talks about the fact that trial lawyers are out there
representing people who have been injured. They are protecting people's
civil rights. They are defending people on a contingency fee basis who
don't have the money to come forward and sue people that have hurt
them. That is critically important. And this bill does not give a
windfall tax rebate to lawyers. All it does is allow them to claim
expenditures that they have put out in the year that they have made
that expenditure, no different than any other business in this country
can do.
So I think it is unfair to criticize trial attorneys who are out
there doing the kind of things that people hire them to do; and that is
protecting people's civil rights and ensuring that people who are
injured are able to get what they need so that they are not victimized
even further.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my friend and
colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation. This bill is a good example of Congress taking action to
address the needs of America's businesses and consumers.
Mr. Speaker, our economy is in a downturn. More and more Americans
are feeling insecure about their future, and they are looking to this
Congress for relief. The tax extenders package that is before us today
will help millions of working families cope with everyday expenses of
life from tuition to the cost of caring for their children. It will
also move our Nation forward to meet the many energy challenges we
face.
Investing in renewable resources is the best long-term strategy to
reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower energy costs. Clean energy
is also a major economic engine that will power the economy of the
future.
In my hometown of Sacramento, clean energy investments made years ago
are now sustaining over 90 local businesses, from solar and wind
companies, to cellulosic fuel and green building enterprises. Clean
energy has changed my district's business climate forever. Sacramento's
clean energy economy can be replicated across this country, but
Congress needs to provide the right incentives to make this vision a
successful reality. This bill will help current and future generations
live in a country with a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and
a more sustainable policy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding.
I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee chose to
reject an amendment that I offered that was an attempt to bring some
clarity and light to this debate, particularly as it relates to energy
needs.
I represent a district, Mr. Speaker, in the Chicago area which the
Chicago Tribune this week has reported has the highest gas prices in
the Nation. So in an attempt to try to take that on, I offered an
amendment that I thought was a very straightforward thing, not meant to
be controversial, not meant to be overly partisan, just a good
commonsense idea that unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee
rejected. That was a simple thing, and that would create a tax credit,
Mr. Speaker, a tax credit for biofuel vehicles.
Right now we have got a tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles, and
that is great. But you have got a lot of municipalities in my district
that are really suffering under the weight of these high gas prices,
and they are looking for alternatives and a biofuel vehicle is just one
of those things. So, in other words, oftentimes these vehicles can
start up using gasoline, and then it can be transferred and powered on
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied propane, or
hydrogen, all things that if municipalities are using will take
pressure off gas prices.
Now think about it. This is an opportunity for Congress to do
something to
[[Page 10205]]
help to create a market for other vehicles. Right now sometimes the
private marketplace isn't able to come up as quickly as we want it, so
we have got local units of government that are saying we want to use
these types of vehicles; and this Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, has
denied the tax credit that would empower that kind of thing. It makes
no sense to me. I am just deeply disappointed that folks on the Rules
Committee who are in the majority just rejected this idea. It is not a
partisan idea. It is what is called a good idea that we need to move
forward.
In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned for the Presidency claiming he had
a secret plan to end the war. He went all over the country and said: I
have got a secret plan to end the war. If you elect me President of the
United States, my secret plan to end the war will win it all and will
bring it all home.
Well, we all know there was no secret plan. His Secretary of Defense
said so, everyone has declared so, and history shows it. But there are
eerie similarities between that declaration of Richard Nixon in 1968
and the words of now Speaker Pelosi when she was the minority leader:
She had a plan to bring gas prices down.
Well, if what the majority is doing on the Rules Committee is
rejecting commonsense ideas like tax credits for biofuel vehicles that
help suburban communities in my district, I am very interested for when
this secret plan that the Speaker has alluded to is going to be coming
forward. I don't think there is a secret plan, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. ROSKAM. I think the Speaker in the last campaign was using the
type of campaign rhetoric that is now unfortunately coming home to
roost.
I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee didn't see fit to
let a commonsense idea that helps the suburban municipalities that I
represent cope with outrageous gas prices.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from New York.
This bill has many good features, and I want to speak about two. One
is energy and two is children.
If we are going to take on the challenge of energy independence, then
we have to start providing incentives, as we do in this bill, for wind,
for solar, for biomass, for alternative energy and efficiencies. It is
a confident Nation that takes on that challenge. It is a submissive
Nation where the leader of our country goes hat in hand to a country
that is not our friend and asks him to solve our problem by pumping
more oil. This moves us in a confident direction of independence, self-
sufficiency, and self-reliance.
The second is children. It is troubling I think to many of us in this
country, and many of us in this body, that the gap between the wealthy
and the poor has never been wider. The top five hedge fund managers
last year earned $12.6 billion. The 9 million lowest income families,
that was their equal income, $12.5 billion.
This bill finally increases the earned income tax credit for low-
income families, bringing down the floor to $8,500, and 15 percent
above that is going to be eligible. Do you know what that is going to
mean just in the State of Vermont? 21,000 kids are going to get help.
21,000 kids. It also means 77 low-income kids from military families
are going to get some assistance. This is money in their pocket where
they too can be self-reliant.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of
the Rules Committee.
{time} 1115
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule
and the underlying bill which the Democratic majority refers to as the
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. I don't know how anyone can call
this an energy creation act when it does nothing, absolutely nothing,
to lower the price of gasoline.
With a week-long recess ahead, I am sure the majority wants to pass
something with the word ``energy'' in it so they can pay lip service,
while the American people are paying more at the pump.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real change and
real solutions. They want Congress to end this energy crisis which is
eating into the budgets of American families and harming their quality
of life.
This bill will not solve their problems. While this bill does extend
temporarily some important tax provisions, it does absolutely nothing
to address the looming alternative minimum tax which will hit millions
of Americans, in fact, 22 million of them, if this Congress fails to
act. And there's nothing in this bill concerning the alternative
minimum tax.
Shortly we will begin debate on another rule for the budget
conference report. I have often heard my colleagues on the other side
refer to the Federal budget as a moral document. Mr. Speaker, I agree
with them. I agree with them.
However, when I look at the details of this budget, I can't help but
ask, how is it moral to impose the largest tax increase in the history
of this country on working Americans, almost $683 billion over the next
5 years?
Mr. Speaker, how is it moral to raise the marginal tax rate on lower
income workers and impose tax burdens on marriage, children, and family
businesses?
Mr. Speaker, how is it moral to provide more than $1 trillion in
discretionary spending, while doing absolutely nothing to reform
entitlement spending and to ensure the solvency of Social Security and
Medicare for our future generations, indeed, our children and our
grandchildren?
The majority can refer to its budget as a moral document all they
want to, but the devil is in the detail, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the
majority believes it's moral to rack up debt and raise taxes to pay for
it.
Mr. Speaker, we need to cut government spending, and we need to
reform uncontrolled entitlement growth by eliminating waste, fraud and
abuse, so that we can provide tax relief to hardworking Americans and
to prevent the tax increases of the Democratic budget, $683 billion.
I urge my colleagues, vote against this rule, the underlying bill and
the Democratic budget.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, in a weak economy it's important for us to
take steps to help small businesses create jobs and provide targeted
tax relief to middle class American taxpayers.
Today's tax relief package will encourage investment in renewable
energy and energy efficient technologies. We help small businesses by
extending the R&D tax credit and the State and local sales tax
deductions.
Also included are extensions of three tax cuts that I introduced last
year, including extending the $250 tax credit to help teachers pay for
out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, encouraging companies to
donate computers to schools, and investing in the clean-up and
development of former industrial sites, commonly referred to as
brownfields.
This bill cuts taxes for small businesses, promotes energy
independence, and provides targeted tax relief for middle class
American families.
I urge my colleagues to support this tax relief package.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of H.R.
6049, the Energy and Tax Extenders Act.
[[Page 10206]]
Back home in Arizona, each and every day practically, we have free
energy that radiates from the sky. An Arizona utility company recently
proposed a plan to take advantage of that sunshine by building one of
the world's largest solar power plants, 280 megawatts. This project
will inject millions of dollars into the State and regional economy,
and once it's complete, will produce enough electricity to power 77,000
homes.
This exciting announcement comes with a caveat. If Congress fails to
extend the 30 percent solar tax investment tax credit, this plant will
not be constructed. The same stipulation has been given for a variety
of solar projects across the Southwest.
H.R. 6049 provides those vital extensions for renewable energy tax
credits which include solar energy, and it will be the fourth time that
the United States of House of Representatives has acted on this issue.
I have repeatedly pushed for passage of these extensions because I
know that they're essential for the solar industry in our country. They
will spur innovation, decrease our emission, and improve our energy
independence.
With technology improving, many solar industry leaders furthermore
believe that solar energy is on track to be cost competitive with
fossil fuels by 2015, if not sooner. But to achieve the goal, we have
to act today before the current energy tax incentive expires.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Energy and Tax Extenders
Act. This is an important piece of legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10
minutes. The gentleman from New York has 17 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, over the next few years the renewable
energy industry in the United States is poised to create hundreds of
thousands of family wage jobs. But none of it will happen, and in fact
we will lose jobs if we don't extend the investment and production tax
credits for new energy technologies.
As someone who spent my entire career in the wind industry, I know
firsthand how critical these credits are to increasing renewable energy
use and production. These incentives helped to turn wind power into a
viable and growing energy option.
Just last week, the Department of Energy released a report estimating
that wind could provide 20 percent of our Nation's energy by 2030.
Renewable energy is now competitive with conventional power.
I recently hosted a meeting in my district with the heads of solar
and wind energy companies to discuss the potential for employment in
the renewable sector. It's clear, with the right Federal incentives,
the industry will flourish, and we could see the creation of half a
million new energy technology jobs in just the next few years.
There's also a flip side. When the production and investment tax
credits lapse, there's a devastating consequence for the renewable
energy industry. For instance, the last time we didn't extend the
production tax credit, the wind industry lost thousands of good paying,
green energy jobs all across our country.
That's why today's legislation is so important. If we are serious
about weaning ourselves off foreign oil, we need to pass the production
and investment tax credits today.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all I think my friend from Georgia
needs some responding to in terms of the issue of the price of gas
today. I just want to point out that what is false is Republicans, not
Democrats, advocated and tried to pass legislation to increase the gas
tax on Americans, offering legislation that would cost American drivers
$800 million. That was a GOP motion to recommit on H.R. 2776 on August
4, 2007. And that data comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The fact is not a single member of the Democratic Caucus supported
the Republican effort to increase the gas tax on American families.
That comes from rollcall vote 834.
The fact is that the Democratic leadership has not brought forward a
bill to increase the gas tax on drivers, only your side of the aisle.
Another point dealing with the pay-fors in this legislation. I just
want to point out one of the pay-fors, the worldwide interest
allocation, would bring in $24 billion raised to help pay for what
we're attempting to do here.
I know my friend, Mr. Hastings, was making reference to this, that
these are simply tax increases. The provision that we're talking about
specifically in worldwide interest allocation, $29 billion, if so, if
this is a tax increase, I just want to remind the gentleman that in
H.R. 3221, the Ways and Means amendment to the Democratic homeownership
rescue bill, that the same provision was included in that bill in which
95 members of your party supported it, including Mr. Hayes, Mr. Porter,
Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Camp, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Keller, Mr.
Knollenberg, Mr. Shays, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Linder, Mr. Walberg, Mrs. Drake,
Mr. English, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Murphy----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Weller, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Young.
If these are tax increases, I just want you to know, for the record,
that in the previous bill that was passed by this House, 95 members of
your caucus supported the identical provision that is in this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
In response to my good friend from New York's response, let's set the
record straight. We are talking about tax extenders. By definition, tax
extenders mean we are extending existing tax relief for people. These
are in law already. They have been extended many, many times in the
past and always been extended without raising taxes on the other end.
Now the gentleman says that the provision they have in this bill may
or may not have bipartisan support. I'm not going to argue with that
point. It probably should be looked at on its merits.
But my point in this and the whole part of this debate is that these
are extending existing tax relief for the American people, and you
don't have to start setting the principle of raising taxes in other
areas to continue tax extensions that are already in law. That's the
point that I was making.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I rise in support of this energy and jobs bill and, in
particular, want to talk about two provisions that are very important
to my constituents and I think very important to the country.
The first are provisions that would extend tax credits for the solar
energy industry. In my district alone, there are hundreds of jobs at
stake. These are hundreds of good, well-paying, clean jobs that not
only are good for the citizens in my district, but also are good for
the country. We need an Apollo project like effort to wean ourselves
off fossil fuels.
We want the ability to be able to tell the oil producing nations of
the world that they can take their oil and they can keep it, that we
don't need it.
We want to be able to address global warming. We want to be able to
make sure that we have a sound energy policy based on this Nation's
future. And solar energy is a big part of the solution.
[[Page 10207]]
So this tax credit alone, I've had business people in my district
tell me if this tax credit goes away, those jobs will go away. It's as
simple as that. Homeowners won't be able to meet the financial burden
of putting solar power panels on their roofs. Those that produce those
panels will have to lay off the people in that industry. People will
become more reliant on fossil fuels, not less.
There's a second provision, very important to my constituents and
also very important to an industry that has a positive balance of trade
with every other country on earth, and that is the entertainment
industry. We have tax incentives to try to keep production in this
country of small and medium sized films. We're losing a lot of that
production to Canada. We'll lose even more if the tax credits that
incentivize those small productions go away. I'm very proud that we're
taking action to deal with the problem of runaway production. Again,
good, well-paying jobs that we want to keep in this country. This
legislation will help keep them there.
Many of my constituents are losing those jobs to Canada, Australia
and other countries because those other countries are offering
incentives to keep and move production there.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
has expired.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
{time} 1130
Mr. SCHIFF. This good bill will help us wean ourselves off fossil
fuels. It will help us keep good-paying jobs in the energy industry, in
the entertainment industry, and a great many other industries, and I
urge support.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again, can I inquire of
the time on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes.
The gentleman from New York has 10 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would inquire of my friend from New
York how many speakers he has.
Mr. ARCURI. We have no additional speakers, so I am prepared to
close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will yield
myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote against the
previous question so we can address the issue of high gasoline prices.
But before I make my motion and explain what my motion would be if we
defeat the previous question, I want to quote several parts of an
editorial that was written by Tracy Warner who is the editorial writer
for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Wenatchee, Washington, in my
district. He kind of hits some of the issues of what we are doing, or
probably I should say not doing, on the head.
[From the Wenatchee World, May 14, 2008]
Irrational Policy Part of the Show
(By Tracy Warner)
The Keystone Cops of Congress wave their truncheons, circle
and bump and wriggle their mustaches, then rush to the paddy
wagon in search of greedy oil companies. In this time of
hardship, this will have to suffice for energy policy.
The goal of the troupe is to somehow make the price of
gasoline lower. High gasoline prices are extremely unpopular.
If they could be forced downward, this would please Americans
at an advantageous time on the political calendar. If that is
not possible, and likely it is not, then complaining loudly
will do. Or, for a real show of statesmanship, you can dole
out financial punishment to the companies that make the
product you want more of.
The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the
government cease stockpiling oil in the strategic petroleum
reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national
emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the
House 385-25, will reduce federal petroleum purchases by
70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil
markets, which are based on global production of 87 million
barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08
percent. We should be grateful.
In a very small way this shows our representatives have
some understanding of economics. Oil markets are mainly a
supply-and-demand issue. Raise supply and the price should
drop, if demand is steady. Raise supplies by 0.08 percent and
the price will drop, maybe by a like amount. We will watch
with great anticipation.
The other legs of the constantly evolving federal oil
policy are not so easily explained. Congress remains adamant
that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a
few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, where production could exceed 1 million barrels a
day. The reason given is this is part of an ``oil friendly
policy'' and we cannot ``drill our way'' to ``energy
independence'' because the effect of a million barrels is so
small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because
it is so little, and then demand the federal government cease
purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.
Some propose sending the Justice Department to file an
antitrust case against OPEC, because its members scheme to
limit the supply of oil and thus drive up the price. So, we
do not wish to drill ourselves, because that would be wrong,
but we demand OPEC sell us more, and if they don't we will
send lawyers. And oh, we want ``energy independence.''
And with lawyers after OPEC, the cops will still be after
the oil companies. The line is oil companies get ``tax
subsidies'' they do not deserve. So the House has voted to
rescind a tax break for the five largest oil companies. The
``subsidy'' to which these congressmen refer was no special
deal. It was a two-point corporate tax cut given to all
manufacturers in 2004. In the meantime, oil companies pay
taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, based on data from
the Energy Information Agency, it is only in the last three
years that after-tax profits of the oil industry have
exceeded its taxes paid to federal and state governments. In
the last 25 years, oil company taxes were nearly double oil
company profits--government makes twice off oil what oil
companies make off oil.
On we go. Newly popular in Congress is a windfall profits
tax, to collect for government the oil profits government
considers ``obscene.'' Oil company profit margins are less
than many other industries, but setting that aside, what
would be the effect of confiscating them? When this was tried
in 1980, oil companies stopped selling the product from which
only government would profit, and we went from expensive gas
to no gas.'
And, we can make price gouging a crime, even though it
already is a crime in most states. Make it a crime to sell
fuel when prices are high. Won't that increase supplies?
The sum of all this policymaking is astonishing
incompetence. Playing for the crowd usually leads this way.
Let me just make a few points here that he raised that I thought were
rather interesting.
He talks about what Congress is doing or not doing, and he says then,
and I will quote verbatim, Mr. Speaker, from his editorial, ``The most
recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the government cease
stockpiling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where some 700
million barrels are kept for national emergencies. This halt, passed by
the Senate 97-1 and the House 385-25, will reduce Federal petroleum
purchases by 70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world
oil prices or oil markets which are based on global production of 87
million barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08
percent.''
He then goes on to say, after I quote there, he goes on to talk then
about things that we probably are not doing and should be doing
otherwise. He goes on to compliment Congress by saying that ``at least
they have some understanding of economics.'' If you're going to not put
oil in a reserve, you presumably have more supply.
He then goes on to talk about what we haven't been doing, which of
course is looking at more known reserves we have in our country to be
energy independent. Again I would like to quote, then, verbatim as he
makes, I think, a very good point:
``Congress remains adamant that we will not attempt to affect
supplies by drilling on a few thousand acres of the vast Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, where the production could exceed 1 million
barrels a day. The reason given is this is part of an `oil friendly
policy' and we cannot `drill our way' to `energy independence' because
the effect of a million barrels is so small. So we deny ourselves a
million barrels a day because it is so little, and then demand the
Federal Government cease purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that
is too much.''
Mr. Speaker, he goes on to talk about other things here, but they
make a very good point. The bottom line is our energy policy is not
looking at the supply side of it. We import so much of our crude oil
and we aren't energy independent in that sense.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so I have an opportunity to amend the rule.
[[Page 10208]]
Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the
cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. According to a
report from just 2 days ago by the AAA in my State of Washington, the
price of gasoline is at a record $3.86 per gallon. That's 24 cents
higher than just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is
$4.69, which is $1.61 higher than a year ago. In the Tri-Cities where I
live, a gallon of gas is $3.83. In Yakima, in the central part of my
district, it's $3.84.
[From the Seattle Times, May 19, 2008]
AAA: Average Gallon of Gas in Washington Hits $3.86
The AAA auto club says the average price of a gallon of
gasoline in Washington continues to climb into record
territory at $3.86.
That's up 24 cents in the past month and 42 cents in the
past year. It's seven cents higher than the national average.
The AAA survey for today found that the average price of a
gallon of diesel in the state is $4.69. That's up 29 cents in
the past month and $1.61 in the past year.
The AAA says the highest gas prices in the state are at
Bellingham at $3.93 and the lowest in Spokane at $3.70.
Prices in some other cities, according to the AAA: Olympia
$3.89, Seattle $3.88, Tacoma $3.87, Vancouver $3.84, Tri-
Cities $3.83, Yakima $3.84.
This increase in prices is causing real strain on family budgets,
farmers, and for small businesses. This Congress needs to act, and we
can't afford to sit and do nothing while prices continue to climb. The
American people deserve action.
Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense
plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Democrat Congress
has done nothing but see fuel prices rise.
One of the most important things that this House can do is recognize
a basic economic principle of supply and demand. Mr. Speaker, the laws
of supply and demand cannot be changed by wishful thinking. At times, I
get the distinct impression that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle believe that wishful thinking will actually lower gas prices.
I support proposals to invent and to develop new sources of energy. I
think we should have a diverse portfolio of energy, and I believe a
vast majority of my colleagues do as well. But gas, diesel, and oil are
absolutely vital to our economy and our way of life and our future.
The problem we are facing at the gas pump is one of high demand and
limited supply, and it's part of a global economy and a global product.
With India and China suddenly consuming enormous amounts of oil, the
price of it is being bid up around the world. The way to combat rising
prices due to high demand is to increase supply. And yet proposals to
increase oil and gas production and exploration in our country have
faced years and years in opposition. Mr. Tracy, in his article, points
that out as it relates to ANWR.
We've been stymied by Democrats in the House, blocked by Democrat
Senators, and vetoed by a Democrat Senator specifically with ANWR. This
liberal Congress is continuing to say ``no'' to developing energy in
our country, to block any bill from being considered or voted upon that
would allow for oil and natural gas exploration in Alaska or in the
oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf, while at the same time they pass
bills threatening to sue foreign countries to produce more oil. That
doesn't increase supply, Mr. Speaker.
We are now paying the price for so many years of repeated refusal to
make use of our country's own natural resources. Not only are we seeing
gas prices going up and up, but our country is even more dependent on
foreign sources of oil. Often the response to this argument from the
other side of the aisle is that even if we approve production in ANWR
or coastal reserves today, it wouldn't come on line for years and
wouldn't really help much.
The hollowness of this argument in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is
astonishing. We are paying the price today for their years of
opposition to real solutions, and they want to keep saying ``no'' and
blaming somebody else.
America can't afford to keep sticking its head in the sand when it
comes to building more refineries and developing our own oil and gas
reserves. It's time for the House to act. It's time for the House to
debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time for the majority to
reveal their promised plan.
By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, this House can
finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous
question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not
rewrite the rule, that would lower the gas prices of unleaded gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally
important issue for America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and
friend from Washington. It's always a pleasure managing a rule on the
floor with you.
I would like to thank him for making a point which I think is a very
good point in his closing, and that is we can't drill our way to oil
independence. I think that is abundantly clear, especially to
Americans. I think they know that.
The fact of the matter is, is that oil is a finite resource. That as
much as we want to dream and that as much as we want to wish, it is a
finite resource. And while there may be reserves that may last us 5
years or 10 years, the fact of the matter is if we don't deal with the
fact that it is a finite resource, then our children and our
grandchildren will have to deal with the fact that there is no more oil
left.
That's what today's bill does. That's what this rule does. It
attempts to take real steps to promote alternative energy because that
is the future of our children and our grandchildren.
H.R. 6049, if it passes the House today, it will be the fourth time
the House has voted to extend many of these energy tax provisions. In
each of the previous three times, the legislation has come under heavy
fire because of the revenue-raising provisions that were included to
ensure that the extensions were compliant with House pay-as-you-go
rules. That is the new Democratic majority's commitment to lowering the
national debt by bringing fiscal responsibility back to the House of
Representatives.
The debate has not fallen on deaf ears. I applaud the Ways and Means
Committee and Chairman Rangel for its tireless commitment to finding
less controversial means for paying for this vital tax relief and
alternative energy development incentives. Their efforts have been
successful judging by the list of organizations and businesses that are
supporting H.R. 6049, including the League of Conservation Voters, the
National Retail Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, Dow
Chemical Company, The Sierra Club, The American Farm Bureau, and the
list goes on and on.
Providing tax relief to middle class families and small businesses,
providing incentives to promote alternative energy development, and
adhering to fiscal responsibility should never, never be a partisan
issue.
Too often in this Chamber we hear countless reasons why not to do
something, but the fact of the matter is, we cannot afford to allow the
vital tax relief and renewable energy incentives in H.R. 6049 to fall
victim to Washington politics.
Just to set the record straight, by voting ``yes'' on the previous
question and voting ``yes'' on the rule and bringing this legislation
to the floor, it will allow 11 million families to deduct State and
local sales taxes; it will allow 3\1/2\ million teachers to deduct
classroom expenses so they can better educate the children they teach;
it will allow 4 million families the ability to deduct education
expenses and help put their children through college; it will allow 13
million families to claim the child tax credit and make it a little
[[Page 10209]]
easier to put food on their table; and it will allow 27,000 domestic
businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace by investing
in vital research and development.
Clearly we in the majority are working to advance the interests of
the American people. I am hopeful we can come together later today,
Republicans and Democrats, pass this rule, pass the underlying
legislation, and move our country forward.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1212 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or the operation of the previous question, it
shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute
which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the
effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of
regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such amendments are waived except those arising under clause
9 of rule XXI.
____
(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. ARCURI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
{time} 1145
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658, DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1213 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1213
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
year 2009, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services. After general
debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion.
No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except
pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my
good friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1213 provides for consideration of
general debate for H.R. 5658. This debate will come under a structured
rule.
The rule provides 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against the
bill's consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI.
As the chairwoman of the Rules Committee announced yesterday evening,
the committee intends to meet later today to report out an additional
rule which will provide for the remaining consideration of the bill,
including amendments and final passage.
This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the
Rules Committee has ample time to consider the amendments submitted to
the committee, and there were a substantial number of amendments
offered.
Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the
most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation that the House
considers each year. The overwhelmingly bipartisan support for this
bill is proof that we understand our obligation as legislators to
support our military and ensure our national security by coming
together and producing quality measures.
[[Page 10210]]
I am proud that the chairman and ranking Republican of the Armed
Services Committee introduced the underlying legislation together.
Chairman Skelton and Representative Hunter are to be congratulated for
a job well done. Without their work, the unanimous support for the bill
with a vote of 61-0 in the Armed Services Committee would not have been
possible.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, President Bush's administration has
neglected the needs of our military. I was just in Baghdad 2 days ago,
and I saw evidence of this neglect. While the President has shown
little hesitation to send troops into harm's way, his refusal to take
care of them and their families when they return is downright
despicable.
The underlying National Defense Authorization Act gives our
servicemen and -women and their families the resources that they need
and deserve. That includes providing a 3.9 percent pay raise for all
servicemembers and expands the authority of the Defense Department to
offer bonuses.
This bill takes care of our soldiers and their families by increasing
access to financial aid for education, expanding survivor benefits, and
enhancing health care services. And it rejects President Bush's
proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases
and other increases in health care costs for soldiers.
The bill also strengthens our national security by providing our
troops with state-of-the-art equipment and authorizes the expansion of
the military.
It includes fiscally responsible provisions that are designed to
increase efficiency and accountability in the military.
The bill cracks down on the Blackwaters of the world and requires the
Department of Defense to put into place policies and systems under
which contractors are held accountable for their actions.
The underlying legislation also addresses the issue of readiness. Our
Armed Forces are hurting today because we continue to ask them to do
more with less.
Under this bill, Congress is making it clear that at least one of the
three branches of government will not allow rhetorical and ideological
policies to stand in the way of doing the right thing by our troops.
We continue to send our brave young men and women into battle without
proper equipment or protection. The National Defense Authorization Act
authorizes nearly $800 million for personal body armor, as well as $2.6
billion for mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles for our troops in
the Middle East.
Finally, the bill prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in
Iraq, requires the Iraqis to invest in the reconstruction of their own
country, and I, for one, have emphasized this repeatedly since the
beginning of this adventure in Iraq. And this bill provides funds to
help train both Iraqi and Afghani security forces.
Mr. Speaker, no one political party holds a monopoly on national
security. The underlying legislation is clear evidence that, under new
leadership, Congress is addressing the needs of our armed services.
America cannot afford to continue to make the same mistakes we have
made in the past. The stakes are too great, and the world is too
dangerous.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary
30 minutes to discuss part one of the proposed rule for the
consideration of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
of 2009, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which was approved by the Armed
Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 61-0, as my friend from
Florida mentioned, would make a number of very positive improvements to
our armed services, and I think this entire House should be
particularly proud of the committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the
quality of life and safety of those serving our country in the armed
services and their families.
This legislation would authorize $600 billion in spending for our
Nation's Armed Forces, including $530 billion in spending for defense
programs at the Pentagon and Energy Departments and $70 billion to
bolster the success of ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan for part of 2009.
It would authorize $783 million for continued procurement and
enhancement of current body armor systems; $1 billion for the training
and support of the Iraqi security forces; and nearly $2 billion for
unfunded readiness initiatives as requested by the services.
It increases Active Duty Army personnel, Mr. Speaker, by 7,000 and
Active Duty Marine Corps personnel by 5,000, while also providing our
uniformed servicemembers with a much-deserved pay raise of 3.9 percent.
And for our active duty troops and veterans who have already done so
much to serve our country, it prohibits increased copayments and
premiums for TRICARE recipients, and expands suicide prevention
efforts.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires the Secretary of
Defense to provide an annual report on Iran's nuclear capabilities so
that this Congress can take a proactive role on recognizing the
potential of this threat and be made aware of the threat that these
capabilities pose to America and our allies.
While this legislation does a great deal to improve our armed
services and to provide them with the resources that they need--and it
accomplishes much of this in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion--there
are a few areas that I think could still be greatly improved.
While the Rules Committee has not yet reported out a rule governing
amendment debate on this legislation--we will do that this afternoon--I
want to take this opportunity to make clear that there are a number of
areas that I and a number of my Republican colleagues believe can be
used to improve this bill through the amendment process.
First, it is my hope that the amendment process for this year's
authorization bill, while it will be a structured rule, will still be
as open as it has been under Republican majority, when between 30 and
40 amendments were regularly allowed to be debated and decided by the
entire House of Representatives.
Of particular concern is the reduction in funds and focus that the
Armed Services Committee chose to provide in this bill for protecting
America from the threat posed by ballistic missiles.
In the Armed Services Committee, my colleague Terry Everett from
Alabama offered amendments to both authorize the President's request
fully for missile defense and allow procurement to go forward and to
restore half of the $10 million that the committee eliminated from the
request for the study of a space test bed.
Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a fellow cochairman of the
Missile Defense Caucus, offered his own amendment to add $100 million
to a program to launch multiple interceptor missiles at once to defeat
multiple incoming missiles or decoys in the event of an attack.
While these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were defeated in committee, I
believe that the entire House should have the opportunity to hear their
arguments and make their own decisions on these issues, as well as the
amendment by my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Sessions of Texas, to
state the sense of Congress that we need to support the development,
testing, and fielding of the capability to intercept ballistic missiles
in their boost phase to protect America's interests.
Again, Mr. Speaker, while this rule provides for 2 hours of general
debate on the bill, there are areas that this House needs and deserves
to address through the amendment process. That will be addressed in the
second rule that we will discuss in the Rules Committee tonight and
will presumably be on the floor tomorrow. I certainly hope that the
House is given a full and fair chance to consider these issues that
I've highlighted, as well as others.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 10211]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to
the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, my good friend,
Representative Skelton, 4 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
I appreciate the fact that we will be again having a rule taken up in
the Rules Committee. I look forward to the second rule for tomorrow.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, in favor of the rule. This is an excellent bill.
It is, of course, the annual defense authorization bill, bipartisan I
should say, very bipartisan in nature because the vote on final passage
out of our committee was 61 Members to none. And I cannot be more
pleased with the work that our committee has done, the ranking members,
the subcommittee chairmen who really did yeoman's work, and I want to
thank them for all their excellent and successful efforts.
{time} 1200
I might mention at the outset that this defense authorization bill,
which is for 2009, is named in honor of former chairman, now ranking
member, who will not be returning to us next year, the gentleman from
California, Duncan Hunter. That is certainly fitting and proper that we
do so to recognize his efforts on national security through the many
years he served on the committee, as well as the leadership positions.
This bill authorizes $531 billion in spending for the defense and
national security functions of the Department of Energy. It also
authorizes a $70 billion bridge fund, which will be considered shortly.
The pay raise to the troops, 3.9 percent, is five-tenths of a percent
more than the administration recommended. And it rolls back the
administration's proposed fee increases on health care as well as
pharmacy costs. It increases the size of the military, something I have
been urging since 1995. It increases the size of the Army by 7,000 and
the Marines by 5,000. They're overburdened and they're strained, and
this is one step towards relieving that strain.
A major problem today is that of readiness, or a lack of readiness.
We restore a great deal of readiness to the military in this bill in
various manners, essentially in training and equipment.
There is $800 million in National Guard and Reserve equipment; $650
million to upgrade military barracks for those trainees that are coming
through. It improves our efforts in Afghanistan. It bans permanent
bases in Iraq. It requires Iraq to do more for itself in the
reconstruction area, establishing a formula by which they, with their
oil surplus, will have to contribute toward that end.
There are additional steps regarding contractor oversight.
Regarding nuclear nonproliferation, we increase the funding by $245
million. That's a very major step. The European missile defense effort
was cut by $370 million. It does a great deal toward national security.
I want to take this opportunity to support the rule, and of course
when the time comes, to support the bill itself. Hopefully we will have
some excellent amendments that will be considered tomorrow. And we will
send this on to the Senate and hopefully have an excellent bill at the
end of the day.
The young people in uniform, of whom we're so very, very proud,
deserve the best. This is one way we in Congress can make sure they get
the very best through this defense authorization bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California, a person in whose name this
defense bill is named after. I would join my friend from Missouri, the
chairman of the committee, suggesting and acknowledging that it is an
honor that is well, well deserved.
I had an opportunity to serve on the committee for 2 years, my first
2 years in Congress. There are probably few, if any, that are more
knowledgeable on these issues surrounding defending our country than
the namesake of this defense authorization bill.
I now yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. And I do want to say there is a
gentleman here who's got more knowledge than I have on this defense
bill, and he just spoke. I want to give my thanks to Chairman Skelton
for doing a great job of putting together an excellent bill which
passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee.
He followed very strongly what I call the two tracks that we're on.
The first track is to provide for the warfighters in the theaters that
are currently in progress in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world,
where we're fighting the global war against terror. We do so very well
in this bill in terms of putting in lots of extra money for MRAPs, for
force protection, for defense against mortars, against roadside bombs,
and all the other things that are important aspects and dimensions of
force protection.
Then we also provide for what I call over the horizon. That means
that we've provided, with the very able chairmen of the subcommittees
and the ranking members, for continued equipment buys in critical areas
and put in extra money for submarines, which we will have low numbers
in the next 5 to 10 years, but are a very important part of American
leverage in foreign policy and a very important component of
warfighting. Putting in extra money for C-17s, for that airlift that is
so critical, for giving a good solid buy on F-22s this year and Joint
Strike Fighter.
Also the report that I've received back from the Marines is that the
first V-22s are now in theater in Iraq and that they're working very
well. The Marines like that doubling of speeds that they now have over
the CH-46 helicopters. That's accruing to their benefit in lots and
lots of operations.
The chairman and the chairmen of the subcommittees and the ranking
members I think have done a great job of filling out both tracks of
both the near term and the long term in this bill.
I thank Mr. Skelton for his kind words. Let me tell you, one of the
real blessings in serving in this body is to be able to serve with a
great partner, whether you're the chairman or the ranking member. The
chairman has done a wonderful job in putting this bill together. The
man from Missouri is an outstanding leader in national security, and I
applaud him for his great career.
I know we also have two members retiring, Mr. Saxton, who for many
years chaired the Special Operations Subcommittee, very important
subcommittee, is now ranking on Air Land. And Mr. Everett, who is
ranking on Strategic. Jim Saxton, I have watched him go around the
world visiting with our special operators, ensuring that they had what
they needed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
his great service on the Armed Services Committee. You can trade up
anytime you want to and come back off that old Rules Committee and come
back to Armed Services.
But Mr. Saxton has done yeomen's work in providing for special
operations, for operations that aren't given ticker-tape parades in
which a number of people know about and are briefed on, but which are
crucial to our Nation's security. Those men and women who serve in
those very important positions in special operations can be thankful
they had Jim Saxton over these years to be supportive of them. And he
is still supportive of them in his job as ranking member to Mr.
Abercrombie on Air Land.
Similarly, Mr. Everett has an insight and understanding of matters
relating to space and missile defense that I think are matched by very
few people in this country. And Terry Everett is the master of the
closed briefing. He makes very few speeches. Terry Everett is not a guy
you look to for long speeches, he's a guy you look to for hard work,
for thoughtful analysis, and for doing the right thing when it comes
[[Page 10212]]
to making sure that as we move into the next 5 to 10 years, we have
what it takes in missile defense and in space to ensure America's
security.
I want to applaud those retiring members of the committee and once
again thank my chairman and all the members of the Armed Services
Committee who make this such a great bipartisan committee.
I think we need to support this rule and move this great package down
the road.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
for the National Defense Authorization Act and the underlying
legislation.
As Congress authorizes this critical funding for the defense of our
Nation and its interests abroad, we also have an opportunity to make
sure that the current nationwide mortgage housing situation does not
adversely affect our veterans.
Current law provides some protections from bankruptcy and foreclosure
for the men and women in uniform while serving in harm's way. But it
does not provide for debt forgiveness or other relief from contractual
obligations of servicemembers who have been called to active duty.
Given the frequency with which military homeowners are forced to move
to different bases throughout the country and overseas, our brave
service men and women should not have to worry about forestalling or
even preventing mortgage foreclosure.
I commend Chairman Skelton and Mr. Hastings and ranking members for
including provisions of a bill that I authored that calls upon the
Secretary of Defense to establish a mortgage foreclosure and credit
counseling program for members of the armed services and those who are
returning from overseas.
Credit counseling is available from many sources, including State and
local governmental agencies, but not all counseling services are the
same or even legitimate. Providing veterans with credible information
through the Department of Defense will enhance their ability to make
sound financial decisions during difficult times and to provide
assistance before a potential problem or crisis arises.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the National
Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Conaway.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for
yielding some time.
I did vote for the underlying bill that this rule is associated with
and intend to vote for it on the floor as it is currently drafted. But
I'm going to speak against the rule and intend to vote against the
rule, should we get that vote.
While the Defense Authorization Act doesn't have much public policy
in relation to energy in it, it is a beneficiary of good, sound
national energy policy.
DOD is the single largest department purchaser of energy of any of
the Federal agencies that this Congress oversees. It would benefit
dramatically by decreases in costs of energy, as would every consumer,
every American home would as well. And conversely, its budgets are
dramatically negatively impacted with rampant run-up in costs. We fly
jets, we drive tanks and Humvees and other vehicles, and we have to buy
that fuel to get that done. These increased costs as a result of an
unsound national policy on energy are a detriment to the Department of
Defense.
A sound national policy on energy should promote additional supplies
of domestically produced sources, both fossil fuel sources as well as
unconventional sources. It's not an either/or, it ought to be both. And
this Democratically led House has consistently, over the last 16
months, had a very negative bias against fossil fuel sources.
Every rational projection of energy usage over the next 20 to 30
years shows that we will continue to be reliant on crude oil and
natural gas for that entire time frame. The larger the domestic supply
of crude oil and natural gas we have, the less dependent we are on
foreign sources and the cheaper it will be. There is an action in
economic law for supply and demand that says if you restrict the
supply, then your costs are going up. And increased costs of energy and
fuel to the Department of Defense is a negative that we ought to
address.
If you punish the producers of crude oil and natural gas, you're
going to get less of it. The bill we passed yesterday, which unleashes
the Department of Justice on an unwarranted witch hunt against the oil
and gas industry, will increase costs and will, therefore, have a
negative impact on the operations of the Defense Department, which this
authorization bill governs. Those increased costs are not in the best
interests of Americans and not in the best interests of the Department
of Defense.
So while this bill and this rule do not specifically address our
national energy policy, a policy that is sound and promotes domestic
production of both crude oil and natural gas as well as unconventional
sources of energy to supply our Department of Defense with the energy
it needs to fly those airplanes, drive those tanks, drive those
Humvees, and light the offices at the Pentagon, as well as the housing
associated with the Department of Defense, is in all of our best
interests. I would urge our colleagues to look at that as we approach
these issues.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Colorado, my friend, a member of the Armed
Services Committee, Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill. I
want to start by applauding Chairman Skelton for his leadership and
also Ranking Member Hunter. They have done a tremendous job as have
their expert staff.
I am particularly grateful to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Smith for
working with me to provide an important provision for Colorado. The
bill prohibits the Department of Defense from transporting away from
the Pueblo chemical depot in the 2009 fiscal year the hazardous wastes
left after the chemical treatment of mustard agent.
This language is necessary because the DOD continues to look at
treating these secondary wastes offsite despite studies showing that
shipping these wastes will not yield benefits and despite the clear
preferences expressed by the community of Pueblo to treat these wastes
onsite.
Last year, Congress mandated that the DOD complete all chemical
weapons destruction activities, including the destruction of 2,600 tons
of liquid mustard agent housed at the Pueblo depot by 2017. The
Department of Defense should get on with this approved plan to treat
the secondary wastes at the depot and not delay this program any
further.
{time} 1215
More broadly, our bill focuses on our military's readiness needs.
After more than 5 years at war, both the Active Duty and Reserve forces
are stretched to their limits. Our bill will provide what's needed to
respond, including funds to address equipment shortages for Active Duty
and Reserve forces, improve the quality of our military barracks,
ammunition maintenance, and expand training opportunities, among other
important readiness needs. It increases Army end strength, consistent
with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And,
importantly, it will provide for a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay
raise for servicemembers, boost funding for the defense health program,
and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill, carefully drafted and
bipartisan, and I urge its passage.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Once again I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question
[[Page 10213]]
so that, with the high price of gasoline that all Americans have
experienced, by defeating the previous question, this House can finally
consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question
is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the
entire rule, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 5984, the
Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as well as ``any amendment which the proponent
asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national
average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel
by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction
of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question once again so that we can consider this
vitally important issue for America's families, workers, truckers,
small businesses, and, for that matter, the entire economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, when Democrats were elected to the majority in 2006, we
promised America that we would govern responsibly, with conviction and
in a bipartisan fashion.
The Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,
named appropriately after our colleague from California, is a bill that
is a perfect example of all three of these things. It is further proof
of how things have changed here in the House in a very short period of
time.
The bill continues the necessary cleaning up of the mess created by
the Bush administration by modernizing our forces and restoring
readiness to our military. It gives our Armed Forces the tools they
need to get the job done abroad while taking care of our soldiers and
their families here at home.
This is a good rule for a great bill. I urge my colleagues to support
both.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1213 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker
shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the
limited continuation of clean energy production incentives
and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to
prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result form a
lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent
asserts. if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the
national average price per gallon of regular unleaded
gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of
oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer
Continental Shelf. Such amendments shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall he considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 70,
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1214 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1214
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2009 and
[[Page 10214]]
including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2008 and 2010 through 2013. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read. The
conference report shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1214.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1214 provides for
consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70,
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.
House resolution 1214 is a traditional conference report rule. It
waives all points of order against the conference report and against
its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be
considered as read. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They are more than just an
accounting of expenditures and revenue. They are statements of our
national values and priorities. For too long Congress passed budgets
with the wrong priorities. For too long the budget put the interests of
the powerful before the needs of working families and those going
through hard times. And for too long the budgets of the past pretended
that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter.
That has changed now. This Congress, the New Direction Congress, is
saying that we value our families and their economic future. This
Congress will fight to make sure that their hard work is rewarded and
that the American Dream is renewed.
This 5-year budget conference agreement charts a new way forward for
the country. It makes investments in energy, education, and
infrastructure. It provides tax relief for the middle class. It returns
the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. And it remembers those whose
service and sacrifice here at home and abroad provide the rest of us
with security and peace of mind. Mr. Speaker, this is a budget with a
conscience.
Today, as we move to pass this conference agreement on the budget,
our country faces major challenges: an economic recession, a crisis in
the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising unemployment,
declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health care, aging
infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with the growing
number of Americans unable to meet their most basic needs.
Faced with these challenges, President Bush and his Republican
colleagues proposed the same tired, failed economic and fiscal
policies. After 7 years the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our
Nation's history. The Bush legacy is the greatest national debt in our
Nation's history. Future generations, our children and our
grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented
rise in debt, a legacy of President George Bush and the Republicans'
reckless and irresponsible policies.
With this budget resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are ready to
take the necessary steps, as difficult as they may be, to regain our
economic health and reclaim our children's future. It is a balanced
budget with balanced priorities.
It returns the budget to balance with projected surpluses in 2012 and
2013 by adhering to fiscally responsible policies. It strengthens the
U.S. economy over the long term while calling for funds to help
Americans struggling in the current economic downturn. It rejects, and
I repeat, it rejects the Republicans' harmful cuts to Medicare and
Medicaid, the Community Development Block Grant program, and LIHEAP.
And it protects priorities like SCHIP, infrastructure needs, homeland
security, innovation, energy, education, health care, veterans, and the
environment.
This budget agreement does not include any tax increases, despite the
overheated claims of the other side. Quite the contrary, it supports
significant tax relief, including extension of marriage penalty relief,
the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and allowing for estate
tax reform. It includes an additional year of relief for the
alternative minimum tax that is fully paid for, Mr. Speaker. And it
provides for property tax relief, energy and education tax relief, and
extenders.
Finally, this budget remembers those who serve at home and abroad. It
provides strong and substantial funding for national defense, including
quality of life for our troops and their families. It provides more
funding for homeland security programs, including first responders,
more than the President would. It provides for the care and treatment
of all of our veterans but most especially our newest generation of
veterans, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are
grievously wounded and thousands who will require treatment for
posttraumatic stress and serious depression. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it
rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget charts a new direction for a
stronger, safer, more compassionate America.
Mr. Speaker, there are two significant differences between the House-
and Senate-passed budgets which this conference report resolves. First
were the reconciliation revisions to the alternative minimum tax. And
the second is the level of nondefense discretionary funding.
On reconciliation, the conference agreement drops the House-passed
reconciliation instructions. Instead, it provides for 1 year of AMT
relief that is fully paid for. The House will continue to work with the
Senate to identify how to pay for permanent relief of the AMT. In the
House such a solution is subject to our PAYGO rules of order and must
be fully offset. With the passage of this conference report, any AMT
fix offered in the Senate that increases the deficit by $10 billion in
a year will also be subject to a Senate point of order.
On nondefense discretionary spending, the difference between the
House and Senate budgets was $3.6 billion, and the conference agreement
splits the difference. By holding most nonsecurity spending to a modest
1 percent above inflation, we are able to move the budget out of
deficit and into surplus by the year 2012 while still providing
substantially greater investment in education, income security,
veterans, and natural resources.
I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to adopt this rule and to approve
the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance the budget: You can
either spend less or you can increase the amount of money coming in.
The majority, as reflected in their budget, have rejected the first
option and instead have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and a
bigger Federal Government.
Republicans have chosen a more responsible approach by committing to
spending less and letting workers, families, and small businesses keep
more of their hard-earned income to save, invest, and spend as they see
fit.
While Republicans have faith in the ability of workers and families
to decide how best to use their paychecks,
[[Page 10215]]
the majority budget reflects the majority's belief that the Federal
Government can make better choices at spending money than individual
Americans.
{time} 1230
That is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.
In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their
budget raises taxes by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5
years. That is almost $700 billion. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker.
Two-thirds of a trillion dollars.
At a time of an economic slowdown and increased cost of living,
American families everywhere are tightening their belts and carefully
budgeting their hard-earned money. This is not the time for the
majority to be forcing American families to send more of their hard-
earned money to Washington. Instead, we should be passing pro-growth
policies to help create jobs and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, tax
increases are not a pro-growth policy. They are anti-growth, anti-small
business, anti-job creation, and we should reject them.
Now you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax
cuts expire, but the reality is that under the majority's budget, every
American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government.
That includes many middle class families, small business owners, and
entrepreneurs.
Although Democrats try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own
budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more
than when the largest enacted tax hike to date was passed, making this
the largest tax increase in American history. While the majority claims
their budget will protect middle class families, their budget numbers
tell a different story.
Under the massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average
taxpayer in the State of Florida, for example, will see his or her
annual bill increase by over $3,000. The majority's budget lets the
current tax cuts expire, and some of those tax cuts are very important
to Americans, to our economy.
For example, seniors could see taxes on their investments and savings
income double. Forty-eight million married couples could once again
face a marriage tax penalty, costing them $3,000 per year. Young
families could see a reduction in the child tax credit. States such as
Florida may not get an extension of the State sales tax deduction.
The majority's budget may even manage to resurrect the death tax.
This will particularly hurt the small businesses in the district that
I'm honored to represent, which provide the majority of the community's
jobs. It may even hit 26 million additional middle class taxpayers with
the alternative minimum tax. Their budget also assumes that 6 million
Americans who currently do not pay any taxes, will once again have to
pay taxes.
Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy, increase investment in
the United States, create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by
the largest amount in history.
At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a
statement by Robert Greenstein, the Executive Director of the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities. The statement calls the claims by my
friends on the Republican side that somehow this is a tax increase in
this bill, he exposes it as being inaccurate.
Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.
Statement By Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, on Misleading
Claims That Congressional Budget Plan Calls for ``Largest Tax Increase
in History''
Some claim that the budget plan of the conferees--which the
House and Senate are scheduled to consider this week--would
constitute ``the largest tax increase in history.'' This
claim is inaccurate, just as the same claim was inaccurate
with regard to the budget resolution that Congress adopted
last year. This year's budget plan does not include a tax
increase. It actually calls for a $340 billion reduction in
revenues, reflecting its assumption that Congress will extend
some parts of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts without offsetting
the costs.
The charge that the conferees' plan includes a large tax
increase arises not from any policy changes that the plan
proposes, but instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003.
Those policies put in place tax cuts that President Bush
proposed, but also provided for those tax cuts to expire at
the end of 2010. The budget plan assumes that Congress will
amend current law to extend some of the expiring tax cuts
(especially those affecting middle-class families) and make
other changes in tax policy, but it also assumes Congress
will partly offset the cost of such changes. The plan does
not assume that Congress will increase total revenues above
what the federal government expects to collect under current
policies--to the contrary, it assumes Congress will reduce
total revenues below what is expected under current policies.
The President's tax cuts expire in 2010 because their
supporters deliberately designed them that way, in order to
fit the tax cuts within the cost constraints imposed by the
budget resolutions that Congress adopted in 2001 and 2003.
While acknowledging that their real goal was to make the tax
cuts permanent, supporters of those measures opted to
``sunset'' the tax cuts before the end of the ten-year budget
window, partly to avoid recognizing the cost of permanent tax
cuts. Now, a few years from the tax cuts' expiration, some of
these same supporters are acting as though the tax cuts are
already permanent and that any proposal to offset any portion
of the cost of extending them is a ``tax increase.''
To extend the tax cuts without paying for them--and to
attack those who simply seek to require that Congress at
least partially pay for any extension of the tax cuts--
further heightens the irresponsible fiscal nature of the
original actions.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that George Bush and the
previous Republican Congresses have created a mess. We are faced with
the largest deficits and debt in the history of our country, thanks to
their fiscally irresponsible policies. We have more people in this
country who are in poverty because of their policies of neglect. We
have more people in this country who are hungry because of their
policies of neglect. Our veterans are finally, at long last, because of
Democratic policies, getting the benefits and the funding that they
have earned. But for years, because of Republican policies and because
of the misplaced priorities of this White House, they have been short-
changed.
We have more people without jobs today because of their neglectful
policies. Our infrastructure is falling apart. I come from
Massachusetts. We have an aging infrastructure. We have bridges in my
State that are older than some of the other States in this country, and
the Federal response has been to provide less and less and less
funding. The infrastructure is crumbling. It's a danger to people. But
those burdens, the cost burden has fallen on the States and our local
communities.
So I can go on and on about their policies, which have literally
created a mess, including these high gas and oil prices that we are
paying right now because they didn't think it was important to invest
in alternative renewable clean energy sources. So here we are, and
thankfully, Mr. Speaker, thankfully, the American people get it, as we
have seen in the recent elections where, in traditional hard-core
Republican areas of this country, voters have said, Enough. We have had
enough. And they have voted for Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this budget that we are talking
about here today is that it rejects the President's harmful cuts in a
number of programs that people in this country think are valuable. This
conference agreement on the budget rejects the President's deep cuts
affecting a wide range of services and constituencies, including $479
billion of Medicare cuts and $94 billion to cuts in Medicaid over 10
years. That was the Presidents' priorities. That was the Republican's
priorities. This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects those cuts.
It also rejects more than $18 billion over 5 years in new fees for
veterans and military retirees. How in good conscience could anybody
propose that, given the fact that our men and women are serving with
such great distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq. They deserve better
than more fees.
This budget also rejects cuts to services that help our communities,
including the community development block grant and the low-income home
energy
[[Page 10216]]
assistance program, which is so important in the Northeast and in other
parts of this country.
This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects the President's call for
the elimination of several State and local law enforcement programs,
including the State criminal alien assistance program, Byrne Grants,
and the COPS program. This Democratic budget also says no to the
President's cuts to EPA grants that help protect public health and
maintain environmental quality.
So we have different priorities as Democrats than the Republicans
have put forward over the years. The budget that we are proposing
strengthens our economy. It provides crucial funding for the Democratic
Innovation Agenda and the America Competes Act to enhance our
competitive edge. It increases funding for math and science education
and research.
We understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to invest in our
educational institutions. It is important to invest in math, science,
and engineering now so that we can be competitive in this global
economy, so that we can be the place where the jobs of tomorrow locate.
This budget that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, increases funding for
efficient and renewable energy programs. It rejects the President's
cuts to research, as well as his proposed cuts to weatherization
assistance for lower income families, and it invests in renewable clean
energy alternatives. This budget invests in education, as I mentioned.
It provides significantly more than the President proposed. And it
invests in infrastructure, in our highways, water, and other
infrastructure by providing sufficient funding in a reserve fund to
facilitate new initiatives in a deficit-neutral manner.
On a whole range of issues, Democrats have decided to chart a very
different course than what the Republicans have proposed for the
previous years. I am proud of the fact that we are moving this country
in a different direction, and the sad part is that we have to dig
ourselves out of this mess that they created.
This is a budget that I think we can be proud of, and I would urge
all my colleagues to support it.
I reserve my time at this point.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong, strong opposition to this budget.
Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report calls for record tax
increases and it increases discretionary spending by $241 billion above
the President's budget over the next 5 years. It does nothing to reform
entitlement or earmarks. Even worse, the Democrats have already
signaled their intent to put off the appropriations until next January,
at the earliest, making this budget an exercise in futility.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted also to say something about the energy crisis
that we are in today. On April 24, 2006, Mr. Speaker, that is almost 2
years ago, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi stated in a press
conference that, and I quote, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to
help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Not only have House
Democrats failed to offer any meaningful solutions to address gas
prices, they have actually put forward policies that will have exactly
the opposite effect. She made this statement April 24, 2006, 6 months
before the November elections, when the Democrats did gain the
majority.
Since taking control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices have
skyrocketed by more than $1.60 a gallon in my home State of Georgia. In
fact, in Georgia's 11th District, my congressional district, northwest
Georgia, working families are now paying as much as $3.78 for a gallon
of regular gasoline.
Every dollar counts, Mr. Speaker, and families should not have to
spend them on this ``Pelosi premium.'' They need to buy school
equipment, they need to put shoes on their children's feet, they need
to buy clothes this fall. Every dollar indeed counts, Mr. Speaker.
Working families and their budgets need relief. They do not need more
broken promises. Energy prices are rising, cost of living expenses are
up, and the Democrats do-nothing leadership has proven that it's
content to just sit on the sidelines and do little, other than raise
taxes and increase spending.
With gasoline prices skyrocketing, our dependence on foreign oil
increasing, and the American peoples' anxiety growing, it is long past
time to increase the supply of American-made energy to help lower these
prices here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I am not holding my breath for a commonsense plan. Maybe
there was a plan, but it sure wasn't common sense, and it definitely
didn't lower gas prices. That is what Speaker Pelosi promised the
American people 2 years ago. I hope the Democrats will begin working
with the Republicans and let's do lower energy prices. Let's have a
meaningful energy bill that makes sense.
With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose this rule on the budget
resolution, and I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
let's do something meaningful about gas prices.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply respond to the
gentleman by saying we have proposed many meaningful measures to try to
deal with not only the current energy prices but also to come up with a
long-term plan so that we are not so reliant on foreign oil.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to get things done with Republican
obstructionism and a President who vetoes everything. Any good idea to
invest more in renewable clean alternative energy sources, to further
develop second or third generation biofuels, this President objects to.
The only thing he likes is if we give more to the oil companies.
We had the Dick Cheney ``secret energy task force,'' which we don't
know all the details because the public was denied access to this
information. But we do know this, that the outcome of that was more of
the same. More drilling, more drilling, more reliance on oil, more
reliance on oil. The same old, same old. We are done with that. We are
done with that.
I should remind everybody that when George Bush became President, a
gallon of gasoline was $1.47. Now it's in excess of $3.79. In some
places, over $4. So that is what has resulted from their policies and
their obstructionism. As I said before, and I will say it again, the
good news is the American people get it. They are tired of it. That is
why we are seeing in hard-core Republican congressional districts
Democratic victories. Things are changing.
I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank my colleague from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I have only one good thing to say about the Democrat
majority's budget resolution. Unlike the only other budget-related
legislation considered by the House this year, at least this
resolution, the budget resolution, follows regular order, not like the
Appropriations Committee process this year.
{time} 1245
Having looked at this budget in some detail, my advice to working
families is simple: Hold on to your wallet. For the first time in
history, the proposed discretionary budget will exceed $1 trillion.
Think about that. $1 trillion. This bloated budget blueprint is a clear
demonstration that the Democrat majority in Congress is keenly focused
on dipping into your pockets to take more and more of your hard-earned
money.
This budget shows that the Democrat majority will raise taxes without
hesitation to support its addiction to spending. And it shows that
Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices,
setting priorities or rooting out waste in government spending. While
our constituents struggle to keep up with their budgets, to fill their
automobiles with gasoline, to buy groceries, for example, Democrats
want to spend and tax to continue their dance in the majority.
[[Page 10217]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I
would just respond by saying to my friends on the other side of the
aisle, you have had your chance. You were in control of this
institution for many years and you had a Republican President, and what
you did was create a situation, the one we are in right now, where we
have the largest debt in the history of the United States of America.
The American people have rejected very clearly your policies and they
are looking for a new direction, and that is what Democrats are going
to offer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I
believe that Congress has an obligation to move our country forward
with sound fiscal policy and smart, forward-thinking investments to
make America stronger, safer and more secure. I want to thank Chairman
Spratt and the Democratic leadership for their steadfast commitment to
a spending blueprint that is fiscally sound and reflects Americans'
priorities.
This budget reflects the priorities of Americans while balancing the
budget by 2012 without adding to our national debt. It ensures tax
relief for middle class American families by committing to an immediate
and long-term fix to the alternative minimum tax. And it reflects our
commitment to quality health care for all Americans by sustaining and
strengthening health benefits for our veterans, our seniors, our
children, the disabled, promoting innovation and medical research, and
responsibly addressing growing costs, inefficiencies and abuses in the
system.
This budget is a first step towards making our economy stronger, our
country safer, and guiding us towards a new direction, the right
direction for building success for American businesses and for American
families, building this country's future.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this sound and fiscally
responsible budget for America.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
It has been an interesting debate. Basically I have heard two
contradictory arguments. One is that when the Republicans were in the
majority, we didn't spend enough on social programs. I remember every
year of our majority, for example, increasing veterans spending. As a
matter of fact, there has been significant criticism of Republicans
when we were in the majority for too much spending globally and in
general. I have heard basically two different theories. So I wish that
our friends on the other side the aisle would kind of choose which of
the two scripts to read. Either we spent too much, or we spent too
little.
The reality is that in the Democrats' budget, basically it is a
blindfold budget, Mr. Speaker, because the minefields that are laying
before the future of this Nation, the needs that we do have to look at
and see how we are going to address, the major problems facing this
Nation, for example, entitlement reform, all the objective, nonpartisan
economists and other experts will tell us that we need to look at such
matters in the future of this Nation. But they are not even touched
upon, not even mentioned, by the majority in its budget.
Obviously they have a tremendous amount of increased spending. It is
evident. They don't call them tax increases, they call them the end of
tax cuts. But there are massive tax increases that will be required to
fund the Democrats' budget, and then the great problems facing this
Nation are simply in blindfold fashion ignored. So it is a very
shortsighted budget, it is fiscally irresponsible, and certainly we
hope that all Members will oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides obviously for consideration of the
budget conference report. Budgets inevitably are a very important
issue, and especially to many Americans who are taking nowadays a
deeper, more careful look into their own budgets, because every day the
rising cost of gasoline is taking more and more of their hard-earned
income. Part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is
because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil while
avoiding development of domestic energy sources.
I learned the other day how more than 80 percent of the electricity
generated in France, for example, is from nuclear power. There is a
very strong environmental movement in France, and yet in consensus
fashion there they have moved forward with nuclear energy.
Imagine if we had built nuclear power plants. We haven't in about 30
years, nor any refineries. Imagine the amount of oil that we would be
saving, how consumption would be reduced, if we also had had the vision
and the determination to build nuclear power plants, safe, new nuclear
plants in this country to substitute for oil. Well, we haven't. So part
of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we
have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, while avoiding
developing domestic energy sources.
Now, one important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny
portion of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of
America's energy independence, even though the people of Alaska, Mr.
Speaker, are overwhelmingly in favor of searching for energy there.
With the price of gasoline reaching records every day, we should be
looking to do all we can to lower the price of gasoline, and that
includes domestic exploration, when the people of a State wish to
search for energy.
Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider an
amendment that would have the effect of lowering the national average
price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by
increasing the domestic supply of oil, by permitting the extraction of
oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people of that great
State and their Senators and Representative here in Congress wish to
do.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting ``no'' on the previous
question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and our
reliance on foreign energy sources.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to
support this rule and to support the budget. It is amusing to hear my
friends on the Republican side try to offer solutions on how to deal
with the energy crisis, when they created it. This is their
responsibility. This is a direct result of their failed policies; not
investing in clean, renewable alternative energy sources; not building
the necessary infrastructure to cultivate these new forms of energy;
not investing in second and third generation biofuels. Instead, their
policies have been the same old, same old.
My friend from Florida talks about ANWR. Boy, what a creative idea.
Let's rely on the oil companies, the same companies that are gouging
American taxpayers each and every day, making record profits. Let's do
what they want us to do. Maybe the time has come to set a new
direction.
With regard to this budget, our budget I think represents responsible
governing. Their budgets, when they could ever actually pass budgets--
and, by the way, when they were in charge they very rarely did; they
especially couldn't muster votes during an election year--represent
what I believe is irresponsible governing. They spent a ton of money.
They spent too much money, by the way, on oil company subsidies and tax
breaks, more and more to the oil companies. They spent too much on the
wealthiest Americans,
[[Page 10218]]
who didn't need any help, who weren't struggling. They spent too much
on a misguided war in Iraq that we should never have fought to begin
with. And they paid for all of this by passing the costs on to future
generations by borrowing from other countries. We are more in debt
because of their leadership to China and to India and to other
countries.
Enough is enough. Again, that is why you are seeing in these hard-
core Republican congressional districts Democrats winning, because the
American people, Democrats and Republicans and independents, have had
it with the Republican priorities.
Let me just close by reminding my colleagues that within this budget
there are important investments, smart energy investments. This
conference agreement on the budget provides $7.7 billion in funding for
renewable energy, energy efficiency and other energy programs, which
is, by the way, $2.8 billion more than the 2008 level. This budget,
this Democratic budget, rejects President Bush's budget cuts to energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs, including his proposed cuts
to the solar energy program, and we reject his suggestion that we
terminate the weatherization assistance program. Boy, talk about going
in the wrong direction.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, invests $2 billion to create ``green
collar'' jobs in our Nation's communities, because Democrats understand
that not only do we need to be better stewards of our environment and
become energy independent, but we also realize that there is the
potential to create countless jobs in the area of environmental
technologies. And this budget, Mr. Speaker, also includes a deficit
neutral reserve fund to accommodate legislation that provides tax
incentives for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
This is a good budget. If you want to deal not only with the short-
term issues involving energy, but the long-term issues, then this is
the budget you should vote for.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1214 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker
shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the
limited continuation of clean energy production incentives
and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to
prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a
lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall he
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall he considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent
asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the
national average price per gallon of regular unleaded
gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of
oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion or consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
____
(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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Ms. Wanda Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
{time} 1300
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 1212; Adopting the resolution, if ordered;
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1213; Adopting the
resolution, if ordered; Ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 1214; Adopting the resolution, if ordered.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
[[Page 10219]]
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6049, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB
CREATION ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1212, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 190, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 338]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
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
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
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
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Andrews
Brown, Corrine
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Cubin
Fortenberry
Gillibrand
Kennedy
King (IA)
Kingston
Olver
Reynolds
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Slaughter
Solis
Speier
Tiahrt
Wexler
{time} 1322
Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 338, I was meeting with
Emergency Room Physicians from California on H.R. 882, Access to
Emergency Medical Services Act. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was detained while attempting to
reach the floor to cast my vote on rollcall 338 earlier this afternoon.
Had I been able to reach the floor before the vote was closed, I would
have voted ``no.''
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 338, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 194, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 339]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
[[Page 10220]]
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
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
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
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
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
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
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Andrews
Boustany
Brown, Corrine
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Edwards
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Kingston
Lynch
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
{time} 1331
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 339, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658, DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1213, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 186, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 340]
YEAS--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
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
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
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
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
[[Page 10221]]
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Andrews
Brown, Corrine
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Kingston
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
{time} 1339
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COBLE, Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 340, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 70,
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1214, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 186, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 341]
YEAS--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Andrews
Becerra
Biggert
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Edwards
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Kingston
Pickering
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
{time} 1346
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 341, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 199, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 342]
YEAS--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
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
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
[[Page 10222]]
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Childers
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
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
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Andrews
Biggert
Brown, Corrine
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Forbes
Gillibrand
Green, Gene
Kennedy
Kingston
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1354
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 342, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 338, 339, 340, 341, and
342, I was at a bill signing at the White House. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea'' on all.
____________________
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1212, I call up
the bill (H.R. 6049) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend
certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6049
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 ``Energy and
Tax Extenders Act of 2008''.
(b) Reference.--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 for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title, etc.
TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--Energy Production Incentives
Part I--Renewable Energy Incentives
Sec. 101. Renewable energy credit.
Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine
renewables.
Sec. 103. Energy credit.
Sec. 104. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
Sec. 105. Special rule to implement FERC and State electric
restructuring policy.
Sec. 106. New clean renewable energy bonds.
Part II--Carbon Mitigation Provisions
Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project
investment credit.
Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment
credit.
Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax.
Sec. 114. Special rules for refund of the coal excise tax to certain
coal producers and exporters.
Sec. 115. Carbon audit of the tax code.
Subtitle B--Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions
Sec. 121. Credit for production of cellulosic biofuel.
Sec. 122. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for
biomass ethanol plant property.
Sec. 123. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
Sec. 124. Modification of alcohol credit.
Sec. 125. Calculation of volume of alcohol for fuel credits.
Sec. 126. Clarification that credits for fuel are designed to provide
an incentive for United States production.
Sec. 127. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor
vehicles.
Sec. 128. Exclusion from heavy truck tax for idling reduction units and
advanced insulation.
Sec. 129. Restructuring of New York Liberty Zone tax credits.
Sec. 130. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.
Sec. 131. Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit.
Sec. 132. Comprehensive study of biofuels.
Subtitle C--Energy Conservation and Efficiency Provisions
Sec. 141. Qualified energy conservation bonds.
Sec. 142. Credit for nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 143. Energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.
Sec. 144. Modifications of energy efficient appliance credit for
appliances produced after 2007.
Sec. 145. Accelerated recovery period for depreciation of smart meters
and smart grid systems.
Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design projects.
TITLE II--ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Extensions Primarily Affecting Individuals
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
[[Page 10223]]
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment
companies.
Sec. 204. Qualified conservation contributions.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for
charitable purposes.
Sec. 206. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers.
Sec. 207. Election to include combat pay as earned income for purposes
of earned income tax credit.
Sec. 208. Modification of mortgage revenue bonds for veterans.
Sec. 209. Distributions from retirement plans to individuals called to
active duty.
Sec. 210. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of
nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 211. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 212. Exclusion of amounts received under qualified group legal
services plans.
Subtitle B--Extensions Primarily Affecting Businesses
Sec. 221. Research credit.
Sec. 222. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 223. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 224. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 225. Fifteen-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified
leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant property.
Sec. 226. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track
facility.
Sec. 227. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian
reservation.
Sec. 228. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 229. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to
domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 230. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to
controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 231. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 232. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 233. Economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 234. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
Sec. 235. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book
inventory to public schools.
Sec. 236. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 237. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable
contributions of property.
Sec. 238. Work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 239. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 240. Look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 241. Expensing for certain qualified film and television
productions.
Subtitle C--Other Extensions
Sec. 251. Authority to disclose information related to terrorist
activities made permanent.
Sec. 252. Authority for undercover operations made permanent.
Sec. 253. Authority to disclose return information for certain veterans
programs made permanent.
Sec. 254. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF
Subtitle A--Individual Tax Relief
Sec. 301. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for
nonitemizers.
Sec. 302. Refundable child credit.
Sec. 303. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with
long-term unused credits for prior year minimum tax
liability, etc.
Subtitle B--Business Related Provisions
Sec. 311. Uniform treatment of attorney-advanced expenses and court
costs in contingency fee cases.
Sec. 312. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Subtitle C--Modification of Penalty on Understatement of Taxpayer's
Liability by Tax Return Preparer
Sec. 321. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's
liability by tax return preparer.
Subtitle D--Extension and Expansion of Certain GO Zone Incentives
Sec. 331. Certain GO Zone incentives.
TITLE IV--REVENUE PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax
indifferent parties.
Sec. 402. Delay in application of worldwide allocation of interest.
Sec. 403. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.
TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--Energy Production Incentives
PART I--RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVES
SEC. 101. RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT.
(a) Extension of Credit.--
(1) 1-year extension for wind facilities.--Paragraph (1) of
section 45(d) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(2) 3-year extension for certain other facilities.--Each of
the following provisions of section 45(d) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January 1,
2012'':
(A) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A).
(B) Clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A).
(C) Paragraph (4).
(D) Paragraph (5).
(E) Paragraph (6).
(F) Paragraph (7).
(G) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (9).
(b) Modification of Credit Phaseout.--
(1) Repeal of phaseout.--Subsection (b) of section 45 is
amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1), and
(B) by striking ``the 8 cent amount in paragraph (1),'' in
paragraph (2) thereof.
(2) Limitation based on investment in facility.--Subsection
(b) of section 45 is amended by inserting before paragraph
(2) the following new paragraph:
``(1) Limitation based on investment in facility.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any qualified facility
originally placed in service after December 31, 2009, the
amount of the credit determined under subsection (a) for any
taxable year with respect to electricity produced at such
facility shall not exceed the product of--
``(i) the applicable percentage with respect to such
facility, multiplied by
``(ii) the eligible basis of such facility.
``(B) Carryforward of unused limitation and excess
credit.--
``(i) Unused limitation.--If the limitation imposed under
subparagraph (A) with respect to any facility for any taxable
year exceeds the prelimitation credit for such facility for
such taxable year, the limitation imposed under subparagraph
(A) with respect to such facility for the succeeding taxable
year shall be increased by the amount of such excess.
``(ii) Excess credit.--If the prelimitation credit with
respect to any facility for any taxable year exceeds the
limitation imposed under subparagraph (A) with respect to
such facility for such taxable year, the credit determined
under subsection (a) with respect to such facility for the
succeeding taxable year (determined before the application of
subparagraph (A) for such succeeding taxable year) shall be
increased by the amount of such excess. With respect to any
facility, no amount may be carried forward under this clause
to any taxable year beginning after the 10-year period
described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii) with respect to such
facility.
``(iii) Prelimitation credit.--The term `prelimitation
credit' with respect to any facility for a taxable year means
the credit determined under subsection (a) with respect to
such facility for such taxable year, determined without
regard to subparagraph (A) and after taking into account any
increase for such taxable year under clause (ii).
``(C) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means,
with respect to any facility, the appropriate percentage
prescribed by the Secretary for the month in which such
facility is originally placed in service.
``(ii) Method of prescribing applicable percentages.--The
applicable percentages prescribed by the Secretary for any
month under clause (i) shall be percentages which yield over
a 10-year period amounts of limitation under subparagraph (A)
which have a present value equal to 35 percent of the
eligible basis of the facility.
``(iii) Method of discounting.--The present value under
clause (ii) shall be determined--
``(I) as of the last day of the 1st year of the 10-year
period referred to in clause (ii),
``(II) by using a discount rate equal to the greater of 110
percent of the Federal long-term rate as in effect under
section 1274(d) for the month preceding the month for which
the applicable percentage is being prescribed, or 4.5
percent, and
``(III) by taking into account the limitation under
subparagraph (A) for any year on the last day of such year.
``(D) Eligible basis.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `eligible basis' means, with
respect to any facility, the sum of--
``(I) the basis of such facility determined as of the time
that such facility is originally placed in service, and
``(II) the portion of the basis of any shared qualified
property which is properly allocable to such facility under
clause (ii).
``(ii) Rules for allocation.--For purposes of subclause
(II) of clause (i), the basis of shared qualified property
shall be allocated among all qualified facilities which are
projected to be placed in service and which require
utilization of such property in proportion to projected
generation from such facilities.
``(iii) Shared qualified property.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `shared
[[Page 10224]]
qualified property' means, with respect to any facility, any
property described in section 168(e)(3)(B)(vi)--
``(I) which a qualified facility will require for
utilization of such facility, and
``(II) which is not a qualified facility.
``(iv) Special rule relating to geothermal facilities.--In
the case of any qualified facility using geothermal energy to
produce electricity, the basis of such facility for purposes
of this paragraph shall be determined as though intangible
drilling and development costs described in section 263(c)
were capitalized rather than expensed.
``(E) Special rule for first and last year of credit
period.--In the case of any taxable year any portion of which
is not within the 10-year period described in subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii) with respect to any facility, the amount of the
limitation under subparagraph (A) with respect to such
facility shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same
ratio to the amount of such limitation (determined without
regard to this subparagraph) as such portion of the taxable
year which is not within such period bears to the entire
taxable year.
``(F) Election to treat all facilities placed in service in
a year as 1 facility.--At the election of the taxpayer, all
qualified facilities which are part of the same project and
which are placed in service during the same calendar year
shall be treated for purposes of this section as 1 facility
which is placed in service at the mid-point of such year or
the first day of the following calendar year.''.
(c) Trash Facility Clarification.--Paragraph (7) of section
45(d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``facility which burns'' and inserting
``facility (other than a facility described in paragraph (6))
which uses'', and
(2) by striking ``combustion''.
(d) Expansion of Biomass Facilities.--
(1) Open-loop biomass facilities.--Paragraph (3) of section
45(d) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Expansion of facility.--Such term shall include a new
unit placed in service after the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph in connection with a facility described in
subparagraph (A), but only to the extent of the increased
amount of electricity produced at the facility by reason of
such new unit.''.
(2) Closed-loop biomass facilities.--Paragraph (2) of
section 45(d) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Expansion of facility.--Such term shall include a new
unit placed in service after the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph in connection with a facility described in
subparagraph (A)(i), but only to the extent of the increased
amount of electricity produced at the facility by reason of
such new unit.''.
(e) Sales of Net Electricity to Regulated Public Utilities
Treated as Sales to Unrelated Persons.--Paragraph (4) of
section 45(e) is amended by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``The net amount of electricity sold by any
taxpayer to a regulated public utility (as defined in section
7701(a)(33)) shall be treated as sold to an unrelated
person.''.
(f) Modification of Rules for Hydropower Production.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 45(c)(8) is amended to read as
follows:
``(C) Nonhydroelectric dam.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), a facility is described in this subparagraph if--
``(i) the hydroelectric project installed on the
nonhydroelectric dam is licensed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and meets all other applicable
environmental, licensing, and regulatory requirements,
``(ii) the nonhydroelectric dam was placed in service
before the date of the enactment of this paragraph and
operated for flood control, navigation, or water supply
purposes and did not produce hydroelectric power on the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, and
``(iii) the hydroelectric project is operated so that the
water surface elevation at any given location and time that
would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric
project is maintained, subject to any license requirements
imposed under applicable law that change the water surface
elevation for the purpose of improving environmental quality
of the affected waterway.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, shall certify if a hydroelectric
project licensed at a nonhydroelectric dam meets the criteria
in clause (iii). Nothing in this section shall affect the
standards under which the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission issues licenses for and regulates hydropower
projects under part I of the Federal Power Act.''.
(g) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to property originally placed in service after December 31,
2008.
(2) Repeal of credit phaseout.--The amendments made by
subsection (b)(1) shall apply to taxable years ending after
December 31, 2008.
(3) Limitation based on investment in facility.--The
amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall apply to property
originally placed in service after December 31, 2009.
(4) Trash facility clarification; sales to related
regulated public utilities.--The amendments made by
subsections (c) and (e) shall apply to electricity produced
and sold after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(5) Expansion of biomass facilities.--The amendments made
by subsection (d) shall apply to property placed in service
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. PRODUCTION CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM
MARINE RENEWABLES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(I) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.''.
(b) Marine Renewables.--Subsection (c) of section 45 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.--
``(A) In general.--The term `marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy' means energy derived from--
``(i) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and
tidal areas,
``(ii) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams,
``(iii) free flowing water in an irrigation system, canal,
or other man-made channel, including projects that utilize
nonmechanical structures to accelerate the flow of water for
electric power production purposes, or
``(iv) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal
energy conversion).
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include any energy
which is derived from any source which utilizes a dam,
diversionary structure (except as provided in subparagraph
(A)(iii)), or impoundment for electric power production
purposes.''.
(c) Definition of Facility.--Subsection (d) of section 45
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
facilities.--In the case of a facility producing electricity
from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, the term
`qualified facility' means any facility owned by the
taxpayer--
``(A) which has a nameplate capacity rating of at least 150
kilowatts, and
``(B) which is originally placed in service on or after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph and before January 1,
2012.''.
(d) Credit Rate.--Subparagraph (A) of section 45(b)(4) is
amended by striking ``or (9)'' and inserting ``(9), or
(11)''.
(e) Coordination With Small Irrigation Power.--Paragraph
(5) of section 45(d), as amended by section 101, is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``the date of
the enactment of paragraph (11)''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced and sold after the date
of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after
such date.
SEC. 103. ENERGY CREDIT.
(a) Extension of Credit.--
(1) Solar energy property.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and
(3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) are each amended by striking
``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2015''.
(2) Fuel cell property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(3) Microturbine property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(2) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(b) Allowance of Energy Credit Against Alternative Minimum
Tax.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by redesignating
clause (iv) as clause (v), and by inserting after clause
(iii) the following new clause:
``(iv) the credit determined under section 46 to the extent
that such credit is attributable to the energy credit
determined under section 48, and''.
(c) Energy Credit for Combined Heat and Power System
Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 48(a)(3)(A) (defining energy
property) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause
(iii), by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (iv), and by
adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) combined heat and power system property,''.
(2) Combined heat and power system property.--Section 48 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Combined Heat and Power System Property.--For
purposes of subsection (a)(3)(A)(v)--
``(1) Combined heat and power system property.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' means property
comprising a system--
``(A) which uses the same energy source for the
simultaneous or sequential generation of electrical power,
mechanical shaft power, or both, in combination with the
generation of steam or other forms of useful thermal energy
(including heating and cooling applications),
[[Page 10225]]
``(B) which produces--
``(i) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in the
form of thermal energy which is not used to produce
electrical or mechanical power (or combination thereof), and
``(ii) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in
the form of electrical or mechanical power (or combination
thereof),
``(C) the energy efficiency percentage of which exceeds 60
percent, and
``(D) which is placed in service before January 1, 2015.
``(2) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of combined heat and power
system property with an electrical capacity in excess of the
applicable capacity placed in service during the taxable
year, the credit under subsection (a)(1) (determined without
regard to this paragraph) for such year shall be equal to the
amount which bears the same ratio to such credit as the
applicable capacity bears to the capacity of such property.
``(B) Applicable capacity.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `applicable capacity' means 15 megawatts or a
mechanical energy capacity of more than 20,000 horsepower or
an equivalent combination of electrical and mechanical energy
capacities.
``(C) Maximum capacity.--The term `combined heat and power
system property' shall not include any property comprising a
system if such system has a capacity in excess of 50
megawatts or a mechanical energy capacity in excess of 67,000
horsepower or an equivalent combination of electrical and
mechanical energy capacities.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Energy efficiency percentage.--For purposes of this
subsection, the energy efficiency percentage of a system is
the fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the total useful
electrical, thermal, and mechanical power produced by the
system at normal operating rates, and expected to be consumed
in its normal application, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is the lower heating value
of the fuel sources for the system.
``(B) Determinations made on btu basis.--The energy
efficiency percentage and the percentages under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be determined on a Btu basis.
``(C) Input and output property not included.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' does not include
property used to transport the energy source to the facility
or to distribute energy produced by the facility.
``(4) Systems using biomass.--If a system is designed to
use biomass (within the meaning of paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 45(c) without regard to the last sentence of
paragraph (3)(A)) for at least 90 percent of the energy
source--
``(A) paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply, but
``(B) the amount of credit determined under subsection (a)
with respect to such system shall not exceed the amount which
bears the same ratio to such amount of credit (determined
without regard to this paragraph) as the energy efficiency
percentage of such system bears to 60 percent.''.
(d) Increase of Credit Limitation for Fuel Cell Property.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 48(c)(1) is amended by striking
``$500'' and inserting ``$1,500''.
(e) Public Utility Property Taken Into Account.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 48(a) is amended
by striking the second sentence thereof.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (1) of section 48(c) is amended by striking
subparagraph (D) and redesignating subparagraph (E) as
subparagraph (D).
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 48(c) is amended by striking
subparagraph (D) and redesignating subparagraph (E) as
subparagraph (D).
(f) 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) Allowance against alternative minimum tax.--The
amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to credits
determined under section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 in taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to carrybacks of such credits.
(3) Combined heat and power and fuel cell property.--The
amendments made by subsections (c) and (d) shall apply to
periods after the date of the enactment of this Act, in
taxable years ending after such date, under rules similar to
the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
(4) Public utility property.--The amendments made by
subsection (e) shall apply to periods after February 13,
2008, in taxable years ending after such date, under rules
similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 104. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT PROPERTY.
(a) Extension.--Section 25D(g) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(b) Maximum Credit for Solar Electric Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(b)(1)(A) is amended by
striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$4,000''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 25D(e)(4)(A)(i) is
amended by striking ``$6,667'' and inserting ``$13,333''.
(c) Credit for Residential Wind Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(a) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) 30 percent of the qualified small wind energy
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such
year.''.
(2) Limitation.--Section 25D(b)(1) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) $500 with respect to each half kilowatt of capacity
(not to exceed $4,000) of wind turbines for which qualified
small wind energy property expenditures are made.''.
(3) Qualified small wind energy property expenditures.--
(A) In general.--Section 25D(d) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Qualified small wind energy property expenditure.--
The term `qualified small wind energy property expenditure'
means an expenditure for property which uses a wind turbine
to generate electricity for use in connection with a dwelling
unit located in the United States and used as a residence by
the taxpayer.''.
(B) No double benefit.--Section 45(d)(1) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term
shall not include any facility with respect to which any
qualified small wind energy property expenditure (as defined
in subsection (d)(4) of section 25D) is taken into account in
determining the credit under such section.''.
(4) Maximum expenditures in case of joint occupancy.--
Section 25D(e)(4)(A) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of
clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new clause:
``(iv) $1,667 in the case of each half kilowatt of capacity
(not to exceed $13,333) of wind turbines for which qualified
small wind energy property expenditures are made.''.
(d) Credit for Geothermal Heat pump Systems.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(a), as amended by subsection
(c), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(3), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) 30 percent of the qualified geothermal heat pump
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such
year.''.
(2) Limitation.--Section 25D(b)(1), as amended by
subsection (c), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) $2,000 with respect to any qualified geothermal heat
pump property expenditures.''.
(3) Qualified geothermal heat pump property expenditure.--
Section 25D(d), as amended by subsection (c), is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Qualified geothermal heat pump property
expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified geothermal heat pump
property expenditure' means an expenditure for qualified
geothermal heat pump property installed on or in connection
with a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as
a residence by the taxpayer.
``(B) Qualified geothermal heat pump property.--The term
`qualified geothermal heat pump property' means any equipment
which--
``(i) uses the ground or ground water as a thermal energy
source to heat the dwelling unit referred to in subparagraph
(A) or as a thermal energy sink to cool such dwelling unit,
and
``(ii) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program
which are in effect at the time that the expenditure for such
equipment is made.''.
(4) Maximum expenditures in case of joint occupancy.--
Section 25D(e)(4)(A), as amended by subsection (c), is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) $6,667 in the case of any qualified geothermal heat
pump property expenditures.''.
(e) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 25D is amended
to read as follows:
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax; Carryforward of
Unused Credit.--
``(1) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a
taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the
credit allowed
[[Page 10226]]
under subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed
the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart
(other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable
year.
``(2) Carryforward of unused credit.--
``(A) Rule for years in which all personal credits allowed
against regular and alternative minimum tax.--In the case of
a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) applies, if the
credit allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation
imposed by section 26(a)(2) for such taxable year reduced by
the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other
than this section), such excess shall be carried to the
succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable
under subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(B) Rule for other years.--In the case of a taxable year
to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, if the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such succeeding
taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 23(b)(4)(B) is amended by inserting ``and
section 25D'' after ``this section''.
(B) Section 24(b)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``and 25B''
and inserting ``, 25B, and 25D''.
(C) Section 25B(g)(2) is amended by striking ``section 23''
and inserting ``sections 23 and 25D''.
(D) Section 26(a)(1) is amended by striking ``and 25B'' and
inserting ``25B, and 25D''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Application of egtrra sunset.--The amendments made by
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (e)(2) shall be
subject to title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 in the same manner as the
provisions of such Act to which such amendments relate.
SEC. 105. SPECIAL RULE TO IMPLEMENT FERC AND STATE ELECTRIC
RESTRUCTURING POLICY.
(a) Extension for Qualified Electric Utilities.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) is amended
by inserting ``(before January 1, 2010, in the case of a
qualified electric utility)'' after ``January 1, 2008''.
(2) Qualified electric utility.--Subsection (i) of section
451 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10)
as paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively, and by
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) Qualified electric utility.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified electric utility' means a
person that, as of the date of the qualifying electric
transmission transaction, is vertically integrated, in that
it is both--
``(A) a transmitting utility (as defined in section 3(23)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(23))) with respect to
the transmission facilities to which the election under this
subsection applies, and
``(B) an electric utility (as defined in section 3(22) of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(22))).''.
(b) Extension of Period for Transfer of Operational Control
Authorized by FERC.--Clause (ii) of section 451(i)(4)(B) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``the
date which is 4 years after the close of the taxable year in
which the transaction occurs''.
(c) Property Located Outside the United States Not Treated
as Exempt Utility Property.--Paragraph (5) of section 451(i)
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Exception for property located outside the united
states.--The term `exempt utility property' shall not include
any property which is located outside the United States.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to transactions after December 31, 2007.
(2) Transfers of operational control.--The amendment made
by subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in section
909 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
(3) Exception for property located outside the united
states.--The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply to
transactions after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. NEW CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:
``Subpart I--Qualified Tax Credit Bonds
``Sec. 54A. Credit to holders of qualified tax credit bonds.
``Sec. 54B. New clean renewable energy bonds.
``SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--If a taxpayer holds a qualified
tax credit bond on one or more credit allowance dates of the
bond during any taxable year, there shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the credits
determined under subsection (b) with respect to such dates.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a qualified tax credit bond is 25 percent of the
annual credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified tax credit bond is the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the applicable credit rate is the rate which the
Secretary estimates will permit the issuance of qualified tax
credit bonds with a specified maturity or redemption date
without discount and without interest cost to the qualified
issuer. The applicable credit rate with respect to any
qualified tax credit bond shall be determined as of the first
day on which there is a binding, written contract for the
sale or exchange of the bond.
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed or matures.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than subpart C and this subpart).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year
(determined before the application of paragraph (1) for such
succeeding taxable year).
``(d) Qualified Tax Credit Bond.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Qualified tax credit bond.--The term `qualified tax
credit bond' means a new clean renewable energy bond which is
part of an issue that meets the requirements of paragraphs
(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
``(2) Special rules relating to expenditures.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph if, as of the date of
issuance, the issuer reasonably expects--
``(i) 100 percent or more of the available project proceeds
to be spent for 1 or more qualified purposes within the 3-
year period beginning on such date of issuance, and
``(ii) a binding commitment with a third party to spend at
least 10 percent of such available project proceeds will be
incurred within the 6-month period beginning on such date of
issuance.
``(B) Failure to spend required amount of bond proceeds
within 3 years.--
``(i) In general.--To the extent that less than 100 percent
of the available project proceeds of the issue are expended
by the close of the expenditure period for 1 or more
qualified purposes, the issuer shall redeem all of the
nonqualified bonds within 90 days after the end of such
period. For purposes of this paragraph, the amount of the
nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed shall be
determined in the same manner as under section 142.
``(ii) Expenditure period.--For purposes of this subpart,
the term `expenditure period' means, with respect to any
issue, the 3-year period beginning on the date of issuance.
Such term shall include any extension of such period under
clause (iii).
``(iii) Extension of period.--Upon submission of a request
prior to the expiration of the expenditure period (determined
without regard to any extension under this clause), the
Secretary may extend such period if the issuer establishes
that the failure to expend the proceeds within the original
expenditure period is due to reasonable cause and the
expenditures for qualified purposes will continue to proceed
with due diligence.
``(C) Qualified purpose.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `qualified purpose' means a purpose specified in
section 54B(a)(1).
``(D) Reimbursement.--For purposes of this subtitle,
available project proceeds of an issue shall be treated as
spent for a qualified purpose if such proceeds are used to
reimburse the issuer for amounts paid for a qualified purpose
after the date that the Secretary makes an allocation of bond
limitation with respect to such issue, but only if--
[[Page 10227]]
``(i) prior to the payment of the original expenditure, the
issuer declared its intent to reimburse such expenditure with
the proceeds of a qualified tax credit bond,
``(ii) not later than 60 days after payment of the original
expenditure, the issuer adopts an official intent to
reimburse the original expenditure with such proceeds, and
``(iii) the reimbursement is made not later than 18 months
after the date the original expenditure is paid.
``(3) Reporting.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph if the issuer of qualified tax
credit bonds submits reports similar to the reports required
under section 149(e).
``(4) Special rules relating to arbitrage.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph if the issuer satisfies the
requirements of section 148 with respect to the proceeds of
the issue.
``(B) Special rule for investments during expenditure
period.--An issue shall not be treated as failing to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A) by reason of any investment
of available project proceeds during the expenditure period.
``(C) Special rule for reserve funds.--An issue shall not
be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A) by reason of any fund which is expected to
be used to repay such issue if--
``(i) such fund is funded at a rate not more rapid than
equal annual installments,
``(ii) such fund is funded in a manner reasonably expected
to result in an amount not greater than an amount necessary
to repay the issue, and
``(iii) the yield on such fund is not greater than the
discount rate determined under paragraph (5)(B) with respect
to the issue.
``(5) Maturity limitation.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as meeting
the requirements of this paragraph if the maturity of any
bond which is part of such issue exceeds the maximum term
determined by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Maximum term.--During each calendar month, the
Secretary shall determine the maximum term permitted under
this paragraph for bonds issued during the following calendar
month. Such maximum term shall be the term which the
Secretary estimates will result in the present value of the
obligation to repay the principal on the bond being equal to
50 percent of the face amount of such bond. Such present
value shall be determined using as a discount rate the
average annual interest rate of tax-exempt obligations having
a term of 10 years or more which are issued during the month.
If the term as so determined is not a multiple of a whole
year, such term shall be rounded to the next highest whole
year.
``(6) Prohibition on financial conflicts of interest.--An
issue shall be treated as meeting the requirements of this
paragraph if the issuer certifies that--
``(A) applicable State and local law requirements governing
conflicts of interest are satisfied with respect to such
issue, and
``(B) if the Secretary prescribes additional conflicts of
interest rules governing the appropriate Members of Congress,
Federal, State, and local officials, and their spouses, such
additional rules are satisfied with respect to such issue.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of
Columbia and any possession of the United States.
``(4) Available project proceeds.--The term `available
project proceeds' means--
``(A) the excess of--
``(i) the proceeds from the sale of an issue, over
``(ii) the issuance costs financed by the issue (to the
extent that such costs do not exceed 2 percent of such
proceeds), and
``(B) the proceeds from any investment of the excess
described in subparagraph (A).
``(f) Credit Treated as Interest.--For purposes of this
subtitle, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
treated as interest which is includible in gross income.
``(g) S Corporations and Partnerships.--In the case of a
tax credit bond held by an S corporation or partnership, the
allocation of the credit allowed by this section to the
shareholders of such corporation or partners of such
partnership shall be treated as a distribution.
``(h) Bonds Held by Regulated Investment Companies and Real
Estate Investment Trusts.--If any qualified tax credit bond
is held by a regulated investment company or a real estate
investment trust, the credit determined under subsection (a)
shall be allowed to shareholders of such company or
beneficiaries of such trust (and any gross income included
under subsection (f) with respect to such credit shall be
treated as distributed to such shareholders or beneficiaries)
under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.
``(i) Credits May Be Stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(1) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a qualified tax credit bond and
the entitlement to the credit under this section with respect
to such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit
under this section shall be allowed to the person who on the
credit allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the
entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
``(2) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in paragraph (1), the rules of section 1286 shall
apply to the qualified tax credit bond as if it were a
stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it
were a stripped coupon.
``SEC. 54B. NEW CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
``(a) New Clean Renewable Energy Bond.--For purposes of
this subpart, the term `new clean renewable energy bond'
means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of such
issue are to be used for capital expenditures incurred by
public power providers or cooperative electric companies for
one or more qualified renewable energy facilities,
``(2) the bond is issued by a qualified issuer, and
``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section.
``(b) Reduced Credit Amount.--The annual credit determined
under section 54A(b) with respect to any new clean renewable
energy bond shall be 70 percent of the amount so determined
without regard to this subsection.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--The maximum aggregate face amount of
bonds which may be designated under subsection (a) by any
issuer shall not exceed the limitation amount allocated under
this subsection to such issuer.
``(2) National limitation on amount of bonds designated.--
There is a national new clean renewable energy bond
limitation of $2,000,000,000 which shall be allocated by the
Secretary as provided in paragraph (3), except that--
``(A) not more than 33\1/3\ percent thereof may be
allocated to qualified projects of public power providers,
``(B) not more than 33\1/3\ percent thereof may be
allocated to qualified projects of governmental bodies, and
``(C) not more than 33\1/3\ percent thereof may be
allocated to qualified projects of cooperative electric
companies.
``(3) Method of allocation.--
``(A) Allocation among public power providers.--After the
Secretary determines the qualified projects of public power
providers which are appropriate for receiving an allocation
of the national new clean renewable energy bond limitation,
the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make
allocations among such projects in such manner that the
amount allocated to each such project bears the same ratio to
the cost of such project as the limitation under paragraph
(2)(A) bears to the cost of all such projects.
``(B) Allocation among governmental bodies and cooperative
electric companies.--The Secretary shall make allocations of
the amount of the national new clean renewable energy bond
limitation described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) among
qualified projects of governmental bodies and cooperative
electric companies, respectively, in such manner as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified renewable energy facility.--The term
`qualified renewable energy facility' means a qualified
facility (as determined under section 45(d) without regard to
paragraphs (8) and (10) thereof and to any placed in service
date) owned by a public power provider, a governmental body,
or a cooperative electric company.
``(2) Public power provider.--The term `public power
provider' means a State utility with a service obligation, as
such terms are defined in section 217 of the Federal Power
Act (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph).
``(3) Governmental body.--The term `governmental body'
means any State or Indian tribal government, or any political
subdivision thereof.
``(4) Cooperative electric company.--The term `cooperative
electric company' means a mutual or cooperative electric
company described in section 501(c)(12) or section
1381(a)(2)(C).
``(5) Clean renewable energy bond lender.--The term `clean
renewable energy bond lender' means a lender which is a
cooperative which is owned by, or has outstanding loans to,
100 or more cooperative electric companies and is in
existence on February 1, 2002, and shall include any
affiliated entity which is controlled by such lender.
``(6) Qualified issuer.--The term `qualified issuer' means
a public power provider, a cooperative electric company, a
governmental body, a clean renewable energy bond
[[Page 10228]]
lender, or a not-for-profit electric utility which has
received a loan or loan guarantee under the Rural
Electrification Act.''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Reporting of credit on qualified tax credit bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54A and such amounts shall be treated as paid on the
credit allowance date (as defined in section 54A(e)(1)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Sections 54(c)(2) and 1400N(l)(3)(B) are each amended
by striking ``subpart C'' and inserting ``subparts C and I''.
(2) Section 1397E(c)(2) is amended by striking ``subpart
H'' and inserting ``subparts H and I''.
(3) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and H'' and
inserting ``H, and I''.
(4) The heading of subpart H of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by striking ``Certain Bonds'' and
inserting ``Clean Renewable Energy Bonds''.
(5) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to subpart
H and inserting the following new items:
``subpart h. nonrefundable credit to holders of clean renewable energy
bonds.
``subpart i. qualified tax credit bonds.''.
(d) Application of Certain Labor Standards on Projects
Financed Under Tax Credit Bonds.--Subchapter IV of chapter 31
of title 40, United States Code, shall apply to projects
financed with the proceeds of any tax credit bond (as defined
in section 54A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
(e) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
PART II--CARBON MITIGATION PROVISIONS
SEC. 111. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF ADVANCED COAL PROJECT
INVESTMENT CREDIT.
(a) Modification of Credit Amount.--Section 48A(a) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) 30 percent of the qualified investment for such
taxable year in the case of projects described in clause
(iii) of subsection (d)(3)(B).''.
(b) Expansion of Aggregate Credits.--Section 48A(d)(3)(A)
is amended by striking ``$1,300,000,000'' and inserting
``$2,550,000,000''.
(c) Authorization of Additional Projects.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 48A(d)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Particular projects.--Of the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary is authorized to certify--
``(i) $800,000,000 for integrated gasification combined
cycle projects the application for which is submitted during
the period described in paragraph (2)(A)(i),
``(ii) $500,000,000 for projects which use other advanced
coal-based generation technologies the application for which
is submitted during the period described in paragraph
(2)(A)(i), and
``(iii) $1,250,000,000 for advanced coal-based generation
technology projects the application for which is submitted
during the period described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii).''.
(2) Application period for additional projects.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 48A(d)(2) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) Application period.--Each applicant for certification
under this paragraph shall submit an application meeting the
requirements of subparagraph (B). An applicant may only
submit an application--
``(i) for an allocation from the dollar amount specified in
clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (3)(B) during the 3-year
period beginning on the date the Secretary establishes the
program under paragraph (1), and
``(ii) for an allocation from the dollar amount specified
in paragraph (3)(B)(iii) during the 3-year period beginning
at the earlier of the termination of the period described in
clause (i) or the date prescribed by the Secretary.''.
(3) Capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions
requirement.--
(A) In general.--Section 48A(e)(1) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (F) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) in the case of any project the application for which
is submitted during the period described in subsection
(d)(2)(A)(ii), the project includes equipment which separates
and sequesters at least 65 percent (70 percent in the case of
an application for reallocated credits under subsection
(d)(4)) of such project's total carbon dioxide emissions.''.
(B) Highest priority for projects which sequester carbon
dioxide emissions.--Section 48A(e)(3) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (B)(iii) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) give highest priority to projects with the greatest
separation and sequestration percentage of total carbon
dioxide emissions.''.
(C) Recapture of credit for failure to sequester.--Section
48A is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Recapture of Credit for Failure To Sequester.--The
Secretary shall provide for recapturing the benefit of any
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any
project which fails to attain or maintain the separation and
sequestration requirements of subsection (e)(1)(G).''.
(4) Additional priority for research partnerships.--Section
48A(e)(3)(B), as amended by paragraph (3)(B), is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii),
(B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv), and
(C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) applicant participants who have a research
partnership with an eligible educational institution (as
defined in section 529(e)(5)), and''.
(5) Clerical amendment.--Section 48A(e)(3) is amended by
striking ``integrated gasification combined cycle'' in the
heading and inserting ``certain''.
(d) Competitive Certification Awards Modification
Authority.--Section 48A, as amended by subsection (c)(3), is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Competitive Certification Awards Modification
Authority.--In implementing this section or section 48B, the
Secretary is directed to modify the terms of any competitive
certification award and any associated closing agreement
where such modification--
``(1) is consistent with the objectives of such section,
``(2) is requested by the recipient of the competitive
certification award, and
``(3) involves moving the project site to improve the
potential to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions,
reduce costs of transporting feedstock, and serve a broader
customer base,
unless the Secretary determines that the dollar amount of tax
credits available to the taxpayer under such section would
increase as a result of the modification or such modification
would result in such project not being originally certified.
In considering any such modification, the Secretary shall
consult with other relevant Federal agencies, including the
Department of Energy.''.
(e) Disclosure of Allocations.--Section 48A(d) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Disclosure of allocations.--The Secretary shall, upon
making a certification under this subsection or section
48B(d), publicly disclose the identity of the applicant and
the amount of the credit certified with respect to such
applicant.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to credits the application for which is submitted during the
period described in section 48A(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and which are allocated or reallocated
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Competitive certification awards modification
authority.--The amendment made by subsection (d) shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and is
applicable to all competitive certification awards entered
into under section 48A or 48B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, whether such awards were issued before, on, or after
such date of enactment.
(3) Disclosure of allocations.--The amendment made by
subsection (e) shall apply to certifications made after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The amendment made by subsection
(c)(5) shall take effect as if included in the amendment made
by section 1307(b) of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005.
SEC. 112. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF COAL GASIFICATION
INVESTMENT CREDIT.
(a) Modification of Credit Amount.--Section 48B(a) is
amended by inserting ``(30 percent in the case of credits
allocated under subsection (d)(1)(B))'' after ``20 percent''.
(b) Expansion of Aggregate Credits.--Section 48B(d)(1) is
amended by striking ``shall not exceed $350,000,000'' and all
that follows and inserting ``shall not exceed--
``(A) $350,000,000, plus
``(B) $250,000,000 for qualifying gasification projects
that include equipment which separates and sequesters at
least 75 percent of such project's total carbon dioxide
emissions.''.
[[Page 10229]]
(c) Recapture of Credit for Failure To Sequester.--Section
48B is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Recapture of Credit for Failure To Sequester.--The
Secretary shall provide for recapturing the benefit of any
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any
project which fails to attain or maintain the separation and
sequestration requirements for such project under subsection
(d)(1).''.
(d) Selection Priorities.--Section 48B(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Selection priorities.--In determining which
qualifying gasification projects to certify under this
section, the Secretary shall--
``(A) give highest priority to projects with the greatest
separation and sequestration percentage of total carbon
dioxide emissions, and
``(B) give high priority to applicant participants who have
a research partnership with an eligible educational
institution (as defined in section 529(e)(5)).''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to credits described in section 48B(d)(1)(B) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are allocated or
reallocated after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 113. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN COAL EXCISE TAX.
Paragraph (2) of section 4121(e) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2014'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``December 31, 2018'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1 after 1981'' in subparagraph
(B) and inserting ``December 31 after 2007''.
SEC. 114. SPECIAL RULES FOR REFUND OF THE COAL EXCISE TAX TO
CERTAIN COAL PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS.
(a) Refund.--
(1) Coal producers.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)(1) and (c)
of section 6416 and section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, if--
(i) a coal producer establishes that such coal producer, or
a party related to such coal producer, exported coal produced
by such coal producer to a foreign country or shipped coal
produced by such coal producer to a possession of the United
States, or caused such coal to be exported or shipped, the
export or shipment of which was other than through an
exporter who meets the requirements of paragraph (2),
(ii) such coal producer filed an excise tax return on or
after October 1, 1990, and on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act, and
(iii) such coal producer files a claim for refund with the
Secretary not later than the close of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
then the Secretary shall pay to such coal producer an amount
equal to the tax paid under section 4121 of such Code on such
coal exported or shipped by the coal producer or a party
related to such coal producer, or caused by the coal producer
or a party related to such coal producer to be exported or
shipped.
(B) Special rules for certain taxpayers.--For purposes of
this section--
(i) In general.--If a coal producer or a party related to a
coal producer has received a judgment described in clause
(iii), such coal producer shall be deemed to have established
the export of coal to a foreign country or shipment of coal
to a possession of the United States under subparagraph
(A)(i).
(ii) Amount of payment.--If a taxpayer described in clause
(i) is entitled to a payment under subparagraph (A), the
amount of such payment shall be reduced by any amount paid
pursuant to the judgment described in clause (iii).
(iii) Judgment described.--A judgment is described in this
subparagraph if such judgment--
(I) is made by a court of competent jurisdiction within the
United States,
(II) relates to the constitutionality of any tax paid on
exported coal under section 4121 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, and
(III) is in favor of the coal producer or the party related
to the coal producer.
(2) Exporters.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)(1) and (c)
of section 6416 and section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, and a judgment described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) of
this subsection, if--
(A) an exporter establishes that such exporter exported
coal to a foreign country or shipped coal to a possession of
the United States, or caused such coal to be so exported or
shipped,
(B) such exporter filed a tax return on or after October 1,
1990, and on or before the date of the enactment of this Act,
and
(C) such exporter files a claim for refund with the
Secretary not later than the close of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
then the Secretary shall pay to such exporter an amount equal
to $0.825 per ton of such coal exported by the exporter or
caused to be exported or shipped, or caused to be exported or
shipped, by the exporter.
(b) Limitations.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to exported coal if a settlement with the Federal
Government has been made with and accepted by, the coal
producer, a party related to such coal producer, or the
exporter, of such coal, as of the date that the claim is
filed under this section with respect to such exported coal.
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``settlement with
the Federal Government'' shall not include any settlement or
stipulation entered into as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, the terms of which contemplate a judgment
concerning which any party has reserved the right to file an
appeal, or has filed an appeal.
(c) Subsequent Refund Prohibited.--No refund shall be made
under this section to the extent that a credit or refund of
such tax on such exported or shipped coal has been paid to
any person.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Coal producer.--The term ``coal producer'' means the
person in whom is vested ownership of the coal immediately
after the coal is severed from the ground, without regard to
the existence of any contractual arrangement for the sale or
other disposition of the coal or the payment of any royalties
between the producer and third parties. The term includes any
person who extracts coal from coal waste refuse piles or from
the silt waste product which results from the wet washing (or
similar processing) of coal.
(2) Exporter.--The term ``exporter'' means a person, other
than a coal producer, who does not have a contract, fee
arrangement, or any other agreement with a producer or seller
of such coal to export or ship such coal to a third party on
behalf of the producer or seller of such coal and--
(A) is indicated in the shipper's export declaration or
other documentation as the exporter of record, or
(B) actually exported such coal to a foreign country or
shipped such coal to a possession of the United States, or
caused such coal to be so exported or shipped.
(3) Related party.--The term ``a party related to such coal
producer'' means a person who--
(A) is related to such coal producer through any degree of
common management, stock ownership, or voting control,
(B) is related (within the meaning of section 144(a)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to such coal producer, or
(C) has a contract, fee arrangement, or any other agreement
with such coal producer to sell such coal to a third party on
behalf of such coal producer.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Treasury or the Secretary's designee.
(e) Timing of Refund.--With respect to any claim for refund
filed pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall determine
whether the requirements of this section are met not later
than 180 days after such claim is filed. If the Secretary
determines that the requirements of this section are met, the
claim for refund shall be paid not later than 180 days after
the Secretary makes such determination.
(f) Interest.--Any refund paid pursuant to this section
shall be paid by the Secretary with interest from the date of
overpayment determined by using the overpayment rate and
method under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(g) Denial of Double Benefit.--The payment under subsection
(a) with respect to any coal shall not exceed--
(1) in the case of a payment to a coal producer, the amount
of tax paid under section 4121 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 with respect to such coal by such coal producer or a
party related to such coal producer, and
(2) in the case of a payment to an exporter, an amount
equal to $0.825 per ton with respect to such coal exported by
the exporter or caused to be exported by the exporter.
(h) Application of Section.--This section applies only to
claims on coal exported or shipped on or after October 1,
1990, through the date of the enactment of this Act.
(i) Standing Not Conferred.--
(1) Exporters.--With respect to exporters, this section
shall not confer standing upon an exporter to commence, or
intervene in, any judicial or administrative proceeding
concerning a claim for refund by a coal producer of any
Federal or State tax, fee, or royalty paid by the coal
producer.
(2) Coal producers.--With respect to coal producers, this
section shall not confer standing upon a coal producer to
commence, or intervene in, any judicial or administrative
proceeding concerning a claim for refund by an exporter of
any Federal or State tax, fee, or royalty paid by the
producer and alleged to have been passed on to an exporter.
SEC. 115. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into
an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to
undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions
that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse
gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall
submit to Congress a report containing the results of study
authorized under this section.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to
[[Page 10230]]
carry out this section $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2008 and 2009.
Subtitle B--Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions
SEC. 121. CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 40 is amended by
striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking
``plus'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, plus'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) the cellulosic biofuel producer credit.''.
(b) Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 40 is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Cellulosic biofuel producer credit.--
``(A) In general.--The cellulosic biofuel producer credit
of any taxpayer is an amount equal to the applicable amount
for each gallon of qualified cellulosic biofuel production.
``(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the applicable amount means $1.01, except that such amount
shall, in the case of cellulosic biofuel which is alcohol, be
reduced by the sum of--
``(i) the amount of the credit in effect for such alcohol
under subsection (b)(1) (without regard to subsection (b)(3))
at the time of the qualified cellulosic biofuel production,
plus
``(ii) in the case of ethanol, the amount of the credit in
effect under subsection (b)(4) at the time of such
production.
``(C) Qualified cellulosic biofuel production.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified cellulosic
biofuel production' means any cellulosic biofuel which is
produced by the taxpayer, and which during the taxable year--
``(i) is sold by the taxpayer to another person--
``(I) for use by such other person in the production of a
qualified cellulosic biofuel mixture in such other person's
trade or business (other than casual off-farm production),
``(II) for use by such other person as a fuel in a trade or
business, or
``(III) who sells such cellulosic biofuel at retail to
another person and places such cellulosic biofuel in the fuel
tank of such other person, or
``(ii) is used or sold by the taxpayer for any purpose
described in clause (i).
The qualified cellulosic biofuel production of any taxpayer
for any taxable year shall not include any alcohol which is
purchased by the taxpayer and with respect to which such
producer increases the proof of the alcohol by additional
distillation.
``(D) Qualified cellulosic biofuel mixture.--For purposes
of this paragraph, the term `qualified cellulosic biofuel
mixture' means a mixture of cellulosic biofuel and gasoline
or of cellulosic biofuel and a special fuel which--
``(i) is sold by the person producing such mixture to any
person for use as a fuel, or
``(ii) is used as a fuel by the person producing such
mixture.
``(E) Cellulosic biofuel.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `cellulosic biofuel' means any
liquid fuel which--
``(I) is produced from any lignocellulosic or
hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis, and
``(II) meets the registration requirements for fuels and
fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection
Agency under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545).
``(ii) Exclusion of low-proof alcohol.--Such term shall not
include any alcohol with a proof of less than 150. The
determination of the proof of any alcohol shall be made
without regard to any added denaturants.
``(F) Allocation of cellulosic biofuel producer credit to
patrons of cooperative.--Rules similar to the rules under
subsection (g)(6) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(G) Registration requirement.--No credit shall be
determined under this paragraph with respect to any taxpayer
unless such taxpayer is registered with the Secretary as a
producer of cellulosic biofuel under section 4101.
``(H) Application of paragraph.--This paragraph shall apply
with respect to qualified cellulosic biofuel production after
December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2016.''.
(2) Termination date not to apply.--Subsection (e) of
section 40 is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or subsection (b)(6)(H)'' after ``by
reason of paragraph (1)'' in paragraph (2), and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Exception for cellulosic biofuel producer credit.--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the portion of the credit
allowed under this section by reason of subsection (a)(4).''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (1) of section 4101(a) is amended--
(i) by striking ``and every person'' and inserting ``,
every person'', and
(ii) by inserting ``, and every person producing cellulosic
biofuel (as defined in section 40(b)(6)(E))'' after ``section
6426(b)(4)(A))''.
(B) The heading of section 40, and the item relating to
such section in the table of sections for subpart D of part
IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, are each amended by
inserting ``, etc.,'' after ``Alcohol''.
(c) Biofuel Not Used as a Fuel, etc.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 40(d) is amended
by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E) and by
inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Cellulosic biofuel producer credit.--If--
``(i) any credit is allowed under subsection (a)(4), and
``(ii) any person does not use such fuel for a purpose
described in subsection (b)(6)(C),
then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to
the applicable amount (as defined in subsection (b)(6)(B))
for each gallon of such cellulosic biofuel.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (C) of section 40(d)(3) is amended by
striking ``Producer'' in the heading and inserting ``Small
ethanol producer''.
(B) Subparagraph (E) of section 40(d)(3), as redesignated
by paragraph (1), is amended by striking ``or (C)'' and
inserting ``(C), or (D)''.
(d) Biofuel Produced in the United States.--Section 40(d)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Special rule for cellulosic biofuel producer
credit.--No cellulosic biofuel producer credit shall be
determined under subsection (a) with respect to any
cellulosic biofuel unless such cellulosic biofuel is produced
in the United States and used as a fuel in the United States.
For purposes of this subsection, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(e) Waiver of Credit Limit for Cellulosic Biofuel
Production by Small Ethanol Producers.--Section 40(b)(4)(C)
is amended by inserting ``(determined without regard to any
qualified cellulosic biofuel production)'' after ``15,000,000
gallons''.
(f) Denial of Double Benefit.--
(1) Biodiesel.--Paragraph (1) of section 40A(d) is amended
by adding at the end the following new flush sentence:
``Such term shall not include any liquid with respect to
which a credit may be determined under section 40.''.
(2) Renewable diesel.--Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f) is
amended by adding at the end the following new flush
sentence:
``Such term shall not include any liquid with respect to
which a credit may be determined under section 40.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel produced after December 31, 2008.
SEC. 122. INCLUSION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL IN BONUS
DEPRECIATION FOR BIOMASS ETHANOL PLANT
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 168(l) is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) Cellulosic biofuel.--The term `cellulosic biofuel'
means any liquid fuel which is produced from any
lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter that is available on
a renewable or recurring basis.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (l) of section 168
is amended--
(1) by striking ``cellulosic biomass ethanol'' each place
it appears and inserting ``cellulosic biofuel'',
(2) by striking ``Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol'' in the
heading of such subsection and inserting ``Cellulosic
Biofuel'', and
(3) by striking ``cellulosic biomass ethanol'' in the
heading of paragraph (2) thereof and inserting ``cellulosic
biofuel''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 123. CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.
(a) In General.--Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and
6427(e)(5)(B) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Increase in Rate of Credit.--
(1) Income tax credit.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of
section 40A(b) are each amended by striking ``50 cents'' and
inserting ``$1.00''.
(2) Excise tax credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 6426(c) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this subsection,
the applicable amount is $1.00.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (b) of section 40A is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 40A(f) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Exception.--Subsection (b)(4) shall not apply with
respect to renewable diesel.''.
(C) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 40A(e) are each
amended by striking ``subsection (b)(5)(C)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(4)(C)''.
(D) Clause (ii) of section 40A(d)(3)(C) is amended by
striking ``subsection (b)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection
(b)(4)(B)''.
(c) Uniform Treatment of Diesel Produced From Biomass.--
Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f) is amended--
(1) by striking ``diesel fuel'' and inserting ``liquid
fuel'',
[[Page 10231]]
(2) by striking ``using a thermal depolymerization
process'', and
(3) by striking ``or D396'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``, D396, or other equivalent standard approved by
the Secretary''.
(d) Coproduction of Renewable Diesel With Petroleum
Feedstock.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f) (defining
renewable diesel) is amended by adding at the end the
following flush sentence:
``Such term does not include any fuel derived from
coprocessing biomass with a feedstock which is not biomass.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `biomass' has the
meaning given such term by section 45K(c)(3).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f)
is amended by striking ``(as defined in section 45K(c)(3))''.
(e) Eligibility of Certain Aviation Fuel.--Paragraph (3) of
section 40A(f) (defining renewable diesel) is amended by
adding at the end the following new flush sentence:
``The term `renewable diesel' also means fuel derived from
biomass which meets the requirements of a Department of
Defense specification for military jet fuel or an American
Society of Testing and Materials specification for aviation
turbine fuel.''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to fuel produced, and sold or used, after December 31, 2008.
(2) Coproduction of renewable diesel with petroleum
feedstock.--The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply
to fuel produced, and sold or used, after February 13, 2008.
SEC. 124. MODIFICATION OF ALCOHOL CREDIT.
(a) Income Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--The table in paragraph (2) of section
40(h) is amended--
(A) by striking ``through 2010'' in the first column and
inserting ``, 2006, 2007, or 2008'',
(B) by striking the period at the end of the third row, and
(C) by adding at the end the following new row:
``2009 through 2010............. 45 cents.......... 33.33 cents.''.
(2) Exception.--Section 40(h) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Reduction delayed until annual production or
importation of 7,500,000,000 gallons.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any calendar year
beginning after 2008, if the Secretary makes a determination
described in subparagraph (B) with respect to all preceding
calendar years beginning after 2007, the last row in the
table in paragraph (2) shall be applied by substituting `51
cents' for `45 cents'.
``(B) Determination.--A determination described in this
subparagraph with respect to any calendar year is a
determination, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, that an amount less than
7,500,000,000 gallons of ethanol (including cellulosic
ethanol) has been produced in or imported into the United
States in such year.''.
(b) Excise Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6426(b)(2)
(relating to alcohol fuel mixture credit) is amended by
striking ``the applicable amount is 51 cents'' and inserting
``the applicable amount is--
``(i) in the case of calendar years beginning before 2009,
51 cents, and
``(ii) in the case of calendar years beginning after 2008,
45 cents.''.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (2) of section 6426(b) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Reduction delayed until annual production or
importation of 7,500,000,000 gallons.--In the case of any
calendar year beginning after 2008, if the Secretary makes a
determination described in section 40(h)(3)(B) with respect
to all preceding calendar years beginning after 2007,
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be applied by substituting `51
cents' for `45 cents'.''
(3) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section
6426(b)(2) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and
inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 125. CALCULATION OF VOLUME OF ALCOHOL FOR FUEL CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 40(d) is amended
by striking ``5 percent'' and inserting ``2 percent''.
(b) Conforming Amendment for Excise Tax Credit.--Section
6426(b) is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as
paragraph (6) and by inserting after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Volume of alcohol.--For purposes of determining under
subsection (a) the number of gallons of alcohol with respect
to which a credit is allowable under subsection (a), the
volume of alcohol shall include the volume of any denaturant
(including gasoline) which is added under any formulas
approved by the Secretary to the extent that such denaturants
do not exceed 2 percent of the volume of such alcohol
(including denaturants).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2008.
SEC. 126. CLARIFICATION THAT CREDITS FOR FUEL ARE DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR UNITED STATES
PRODUCTION.
(a) Alcohol Fuels Credit.--Subsection (d) of section 40 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Limitation to alcohol with connection to the united
states.--No credit shall be determined under this section
with respect to any alcohol which is produced outside the
United States for use as a fuel outside the United States.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(b) Biodiesel Fuels Credit.--Subsection (d) of section 40A
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Limitation to biodiesel with connection to the united
states.--No credit shall be determined under this section
with respect to any biodiesel which is produced outside the
United States for use as a fuel outside the United States.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(c) Excise Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 6426 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation to Fuels With Connection to the United
States.--
``(1) Alcohol.--No credit shall be determined under this
section with respect to any alcohol which is produced outside
the United States for use as a fuel outside the United
States.
``(2) Biodiesel and alternative fuels.--No credit shall be
determined under this section with respect to any biodiesel
or alternative fuel which is produced outside the United
States for use as a fuel outside the United States.
For purposes of this subsection, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 6427
is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6)
and by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Limitation to fuels with connection to the united
states.--No amount shall be payable under paragraph (1) or
(2) with respect to any mixture or alternative fuel if credit
is not allowed with respect to such mixture or alternative
fuel by reason of section 6426(i).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to claims for credit or payment made on or after
May 15, 2008.
SEC. 127. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE
MOTOR VEHICLES.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 30D. NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR
VEHICLES.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the credit amounts
determined under subsection (b) with respect to each new
qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle placed in
service by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Per Vehicle Dollar Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined under this
subsection with respect to any new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle is the sum of the amounts determined
under paragraphs (2) and (3) with respect to such vehicle.
``(2) Base amount.--The amount determined under this
paragraph is $3,000.
``(3) Battery capacity.--In the case of a vehicle which
draws propulsion energy from a battery with not less than 5
kilowatt hours of capacity, the amount determined under this
paragraph is $200, plus $200 for each kilowatt hour of
capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours. The amount determined
under this paragraph shall not exceed $2,000.
``(c) Application With Other Credits.--
``(1) Business credit treated as part of general business
credit.--So much of the credit which would be allowed under
subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined without
regard to this subsection) that is attributable to property
of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation shall
be treated as a credit listed in section 38(b) for such
taxable year (and not allowed under subsection (a)).
``(2) Personal credit.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this title, the credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined
after application of paragraph (1)) shall be treated as a
credit allowable under subpart A for such taxable year.
``(B) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a
taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(i) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
[[Page 10232]]
``(ii) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
(other than this section and sections 23 and 25D) and section
27 for the taxable year.
``(d) New Qualified Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicle.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30(c)(2))--
``(A) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(B) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer
and not for resale,
``(C) which is made by a manufacturer,
``(D) which has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than
14,000 pounds,
``(E) which has received a certificate of conformity under
the Clean Air Act and meets or exceeds the Bin 5 Tier II
emission standard established in regulations prescribed by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act for that make and
model year vehicle, and
``(F) which is propelled to a significant extent by an
electric motor which draws electricity from a battery which--
``(i) has a capacity of not less than 4 kilowatt hours, and
``(ii) is capable of being recharged from an external
source of electricity.
``(2) Exception.--The term `new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle' shall not include any vehicle which is
not a passenger automobile or light truck if such vehicle has
a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 8,500 pounds.
``(3) Other terms.--The terms `passenger automobile',
`light truck', and `manufacturer' have the meanings given
such terms in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of the
administration of title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521 et seq.).
``(4) Battery capacity.--The term `capacity' means, with
respect to any battery, the quantity of electricity which the
battery is capable of storing, expressed in kilowatt hours,
as measured from a 100 percent state of charge to a 0 percent
state of charge.
``(e) Limitation on Number of New Qualified Plug-in
Electric Drive Motor Vehicles Eligible for Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a new qualified plug-in
electric drive motor vehicle sold during the phaseout period,
only the applicable percentage of the credit otherwise
allowable under subsection (a) shall be allowed.
``(2) Phaseout period.--For purposes of this subsection,
the phaseout period is the period beginning with the second
calendar quarter following the calendar quarter which
includes the first date on which the number of new qualified
plug-in electric drive motor vehicles manufactured by the
manufacturer of the vehicle referred to in paragraph (1) sold
for use in the United States after the date of the enactment
of this section, is at least 60,000.
``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage is--
``(A) 50 percent for the first 2 calendar quarters of the
phaseout period,
``(B) 25 percent for the 3d and 4th calendar quarters of
the phaseout period, and
``(C) 0 percent for each calendar quarter thereafter.
``(4) Controlled groups.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 30B(f)(4) shall apply for purposes of this
subsection.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any property for which
a credit is allowable under sub- section (a) shall be reduced
by the amount of such credit (determined without regard to
subsection (c)).
``(2) Recapture.--The Secretary shall, by regulations,
provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable
under subsection (a) with respect to any property which
ceases to be property eligible for such credit.
``(3) Property used outside united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1)
or with respect to the portion of the cost of any property
taken into account under section 179.
``(4) Election not to take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any vehicle if the taxpayer
elects to not have this section apply to such vehicle.
``(5) Property used by tax-exempt entity; interaction with
air quality and motor vehicle safety standards.--Rules
similar to the rules of paragraphs (6) and (10) of section
30B(h) shall apply for purposes of this section.''.
(b) Coordination With Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit.--
Section 30B(d)(3) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Exclusion of plug-in vehicles.--Any vehicle with
respect to which a credit is allowable under section 30D
(determined without regard to subsection (c) thereof) shall
not be taken into account under this section.''.
(c) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--Section
38(b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' each place it appears at the end of
any paragraph,
(2) by striking ``plus'' each place it appears at the end
of any paragraph,
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (31) and
inserting ``, plus'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(32) the portion of the new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle credit to which section 30D(c)(1)
applies.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1)(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B), as amended by section 104, is
amended by striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and
30D''.
(B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) is amended by inserting
``30D,'' after ``25D,''.
(C) Section 25B(g)(2), as amended by section 104, is
amended by striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``, 25D, and
30D''.
(D) Section 26(a)(1), as amended by section 104, is amended
by striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(E) Section 1400C(d)(2) is amended by striking ``and 25D''
and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(2) Section 1016(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (36), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (37) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(38) to the extent provided in section 30D(f)(1).''.
(3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting ``30D(f)(4),''
after ``30C(e)(5),''.
(e) Treatment of Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit as a
Personal Credit.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 30B(g) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) for any taxable year (after application of paragraph (1))
shall be treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for
such taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 30C(d)(2) is amended by
striking ``sections 27, 30, and 30B'' and inserting
``sections 27 and 30''.
(B) Paragraph (3) of section 55(c) is amended by striking
``30B(g)(2),''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
(2) Treatment of alternative motor vehicle credit as
personal credit.--The amendments made by subsection (e) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(g) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--The amendment made by
subsection (d)(1)(A) shall be subject to title IX of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 in
the same manner as the provision of such Act to which such
amendment relates.
SEC. 128. EXCLUSION FROM HEAVY TRUCK TAX FOR IDLING REDUCTION
UNITS AND ADVANCED INSULATION.
(a) In General.--Section 4053 is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraphs:
``(9) Idling reduction device.--Any device or system of
devices which--
``(A) is designed to provide to a vehicle those services
(such as heat, air conditioning, or electricity) that would
otherwise require the operation of the main drive engine
while the vehicle is temporarily parked or remains stationary
using one or more devices affixed to a tractor, and
``(B) is certified by the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Transportation, to
reduce idling of such vehicle at a motor vehicle rest stop or
other location where such vehicles are temporarily parked or
remain stationary.
``(10) Advanced insulation.--Any insulation that has an R
value of not less than R35 per inch.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to sales or installations after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 129. RESTRUCTURING OF NEW YORK LIBERTY ZONE TAX CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter Y of chapter 1 is
amended by redesignating section 1400L as section 1400K and
by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 1400L. NEW YORK LIBERTY ZONE TAX CREDITS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of a New York Liberty Zone
governmental unit, there shall be allowed as a credit against
any taxes imposed for any payroll period by section 3402 for
which such governmental unit is liable under section 3403 an
amount equal to so much of the portion of the qualifying
project expenditure amount allocated under subsection (b)(3)
to such governmental unit for the calendar year as is
allocated by such governmental unit to such period under
subsection (b)(4).
``(b) Qualifying Project Expenditure Amount.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying project expenditure
amount' means, with respect to any calendar year, the sum
of--
``(A) the total expenditures paid or incurred during such
calendar year by all New York Liberty Zone governmental units
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for any
portion of qualifying projects located wholly within the City
of New York, New York, and
``(B) any such expenditures--
[[Page 10233]]
``(i) paid or incurred in any preceding calendar year which
begins after the date of enactment of this section, and
``(ii) not previously allocated under paragraph (3).
``(2) Qualifying project.--The term `qualifying project'
means any transportation infrastructure project, including
highways, mass transit systems, railroads, airports, ports,
and waterways, in or connecting with the New York Liberty
Zone (as defined in section 1400K(h)), which is designated as
a qualifying project under this section jointly by the
Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City
of New York, New York.
``(3) General allocation.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor of the State of New York
and the Mayor of the City of New York, New York, shall
jointly allocate to each New York Liberty Zone governmental
unit the portion of the qualifying project expenditure amount
which may be taken into account by such governmental unit
under subsection (a) for any calendar year in the credit
period.
``(B) Aggregate limit.--The aggregate amount which may be
allocated under subparagraph (A) for all calendar years in
the credit period shall not exceed $2,000,000,000.
``(C) Annual limit.--The aggregate amount which may be
allocated under subparagraph (A) for any calendar year in the
credit period shall not exceed the sum of--
``(i) $115,000,000 ($425,000,000 in the case of the last 2
years in the credit period), plus
``(ii) the aggregate amount authorized to be allocated
under this paragraph for all preceding calendar years in the
credit period which was not so allocated.
``(D) Unallocated amounts at end of credit period.--If, as
of the close of the credit period, the amount under
subparagraph (B) exceeds the aggregate amount allocated under
subparagraph (A) for all calendar years in the credit period,
the Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the
City of New York, New York, may jointly allocate to New York
Liberty Zone governmental units for any calendar year in the
5-year period following the credit period an amount equal
to--
``(i) the lesser of--
``(I) such excess, or
``(II) the qualifying project expenditure amount for such
calendar year, reduced by
``(ii) the aggregate amount allocated under this
subparagraph for all preceding calendar years.
``(4) Allocation to payroll periods.--Each New York Liberty
Zone governmental unit which has been allocated a portion of
the qualifying project expenditure amount under paragraph (3)
for a calendar year may allocate such portion to payroll
periods beginning in such calendar year as such governmental
unit determines appropriate.
``(c) Carryover of Unused Allocations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the amount allocated under subsection (b)(3) to a New York
Liberty Zone governmental unit for any calendar year exceeds
the aggregate taxes imposed by section 3402 for which such
governmental unit is liable under section 3403 for periods
beginning in such year, such excess shall be carried to the
succeeding calendar year and added to the allocation of such
governmental unit for such succeeding calendar year.
``(2) Reallocation.--If a New York Liberty Zone
governmental unit does not use an amount allocated to it
under subsection (b)(3) within the time prescribed by the
Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City
of New York, New York, then such amount shall after such time
be treated for purposes of subsection (b)(3) in the same
manner as if it had never been allocated.
``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Credit period.--The term `credit period' means the
12-year period beginning on January 1, 2009.
``(2) New york liberty zone governmental unit.--The term
`New York Liberty Zone governmental unit' means--
``(A) the State of New York,
``(B) the City of New York, New York, and
``(C) any agency or instrumentality of such State or City.
``(3) Treatment of funds.--Any expenditure for a qualifying
project taken into account for purposes of the credit under
this section shall be considered State and local funds for
the purpose of any Federal program.
``(4) Treatment of credit amounts for purposes of
withholding taxes.--For purposes of this title, a New York
Liberty Zone governmental unit shall be treated as having
paid to the Secretary, on the day on which wages are paid to
employees, an amount equal to the amount of the credit
allowed to such entity under subsection (a) with respect to
such wages, but only if such governmental unit deducts and
withholds wages for such payroll period under section 3401
(relating to wage withholding).
``(e) Reporting.--The Governor of the State of New York and
the Mayor of the City of New York, New York, shall jointly
submit to the Secretary an annual report--
``(1) which certifies--
``(A) the qualifying project expenditure amount for the
calendar year, and
``(B) the amount allocated to each New York Liberty Zone
governmental unit under subsection (b)(3) for the calendar
year, and
``(2) includes such other information as the Secretary may
require to carry out this section.
``(f) Guidance.--The Secretary may prescribe such guidance
as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with
the purposes of this section.''.
(b) Termination of Special Allowance and Expensing.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 1400K(b)(2), as redesignated by
subsection (a), is amended by striking the parenthetical
therein and inserting ``(in the case of nonresidential real
property and residential rental property, the date of the
enactment of the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 or, if
acquired pursuant to a binding contract in effect on such
enactment date, December 31, 2009)''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(c)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``section
1400L(a)'' and inserting ``section 1400K(a)''.
(2) Section 168(k)(2)(D)(ii) is amended by striking
``section 1400L(c)(2)'' and inserting ``section
1400K(c)(2)''.
(3) The table of sections for part I of subchapter Y of
chapter 1 is amended by redesignating the item relating to
section 1400L as an item relating to section 1400K and by
inserting after such item the following new item:
``Sec. 1400L. New York Liberty Zone tax credits.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 130. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.''.
(b) Limitation on Exclusion.--Paragraph (2) of section
132(f) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the applicable annual limitation in the case of any
qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.''.
(c) Definitions.--Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Definitions related to bicycle commuting
reimbursement.--
``(i) Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.--The term
`qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement' means, with
respect to any calendar year, any employer reimbursement
during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of
such calendar year for reasonable expenses incurred by the
employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a
bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if
such bicycle is regularly used for travel between the
employee's residence and place of employment.
``(ii) Applicable annual limitation.--The term `applicable
annual limitation' means, with respect to any employee for
any calendar year, the product of $20 multiplied by the
number of qualified bicycle commuting months during such
year.
``(iii) Qualified bicycle commuting month.--The term
`qualified bicycle commuting month' means, with respect to
any employee, any month during which such employee--
``(I) regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion
of the travel between the employee's residence and place of
employment, and
``(II) does not receive any benefit described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1).''.
(d) Constructive Receipt of Benefit.--Paragraph (4) of
section 132(f) is amended by inserting ``(other than a
qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement)'' after
``qualified transportation fringe''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.
SEC. 131. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY CREDIT.
(a) Increase in Credit Amount.--Section 30C is amended--
(1) by striking ``30 percent'' in subsection (a) and
inserting ``50 percent'', and
(2) by striking ``$30,000'' in subsection (b)(1) and
inserting ``$50,000''.
(b) Extension of Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 30C(g)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 132. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF BIOFUELS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy,
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences to
[[Page 10234]]
produce an analysis of current scientific findings to
determine--
(1) current biofuels production, as well as projections for
future production,
(2) the maximum amount of biofuels production capable in
United States forests and farmlands, including the current
quantities and character of the feedstocks and including such
information as regional forest inventories that are
commercially available, used in the production of biofuels,
(3) the domestic effects of an increase in biofuels
production levels, including the effects of such levels on--
(A) the price of fuel,
(B) the price of land in rural and suburban communities,
(C) crop acreage, forest acreage, and other land use,
(D) the environment, due to changes in crop acreage,
fertilizer use, runoff, water use, emissions from vehicles
utilizing biofuels, and other factors,
(E) the price of feed,
(F) the selling price of grain crops and unprocessed forest
products,
(G) exports and imports of grains and unprocessed forest
products,
(H) taxpayers, through cost or savings to commodity crop
payments, and
(I) the expansion of refinery capacity,
(4) the ability to convert corn ethanol plants for other
uses, such as cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel,
(5) a comparative analysis of corn ethanol versus other
biofuels and renewable energy sources, considering cost,
energy output, and ease of implementation,
(6) the impact of the tax credit established by section 121
of this Act on the regional agricultural and silvicultural
capabilities of commercially available forest inventories,
and
(7) the need for additional scientific inquiry, and
specific areas of interest for future research.
(b) Report.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an
initial report of the findings of the study required under
subsection (a) to Congress not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act (36 months after such date
in the case of the information required by subsection
(a)(6)), and a final report not later than 12 months after
such date (42 months after such date in the case of the
information required by subsection (a)(6)).
Subtitle C--Energy Conservation and Efficiency Provisions
SEC. 141. QUALIFIED ENERGY CONSERVATION BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subpart I of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1, as added by section 106, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 54C. QUALIFIED ENERGY CONSERVATION BONDS.
``(a) Qualified Energy Conservation Bond.--For purposes of
this subchapter, the term `qualified energy conservation
bond' means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of such
issue are to be used for one or more qualified conservation
purposes,
``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government,
and
``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section.
``(b) Reduced Credit Amount.--The annual credit determined
under section 54A(b) with respect to any qualified energy
conservation bond shall be 70 percent of the amount so
determined without regard to this subsection.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds which may be
designated under subsection (a) by any issuer shall not
exceed the limitation amount allocated to such issuer under
subsection (e).
``(d) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
There is a national qualified energy conservation bond
limitation of $3,000,000,000.
``(e) Allocations.--
``(1) In general.--The limitation applicable under
subsection (d) shall be allocated by the Secretary among the
States in proportion to the population of the States.
``(2) Allocations to largest local governments.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any State in which there
is a large local government, each such local government shall
be allocated a portion of such State's allocation which bears
the same ratio to the State's allocation (determined without
regard to this subparagraph) as the population of such large
local government bears to the population of such State.
``(B) Allocation of unused limitation to state.--The amount
allocated under this subsection to a large local government
may be reallocated by such local government to the State in
which such local government is located.
``(C) Large local government.--For purposes of this
section, the term `large local government' means any
municipality or county if such municipality or county has a
population of 100,000 or more.
``(3) Allocation to issuers; restriction on private
activity bonds.--Any allocation under this subsection to a
State or large local government shall be allocated by such
State or large local government to issuers within the State
in a manner that results in not less than 70 percent of the
allocation to such State or large local government being used
to designate bonds which are not private activity bonds.
``(f) Qualified Conservation Purpose.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified conservation
purpose' means any of the following:
``(A) Capital expenditures incurred for purposes of--
``(i) reducing energy consumption in publicly-owned
buildings by at least 20 percent,
``(ii) implementing green community programs,
``(iii) rural development involving the production of
electricity from renewable energy resources, or
``(iv) any qualified facility (as determined under section
45(d) without regard to paragraphs (8) and (10) thereof and
without regard to any placed in service date).
``(B) Expenditures with respect to research facilities, and
research grants, to support research in--
``(i) development of cellulosic ethanol or other nonfossil
fuels,
``(ii) technologies for the capture and sequestration of
carbon dioxide produced through the use of fossil fuels,
``(iii) increasing the efficiency of existing technologies
for producing nonfossil fuels,
``(iv) automobile battery technologies and other
technologies to reduce fossil fuel consumption in
transportation, or
``(v) technologies to reduce energy use in buildings.
``(C) Mass commuting facilities and related facilities that
reduce the consumption of energy, including expenditures to
reduce pollution from vehicles used for mass commuting.
``(D) Demonstration projects designed to promote the
commercialization of--
``(i) green building technology,
``(ii) conversion of agricultural waste for use in the
production of fuel or otherwise,
``(iii) advanced battery manufacturing technologies,
``(iv) technologies to reduce peak use of electricity, or
``(v) technologies for the capture and sequestration of
carbon dioxide emitted from combusting fossil fuels in order
to produce electricity.
``(E) Public education campaigns to promote energy
efficiency.
``(2) Special rules for private activity bonds.--For
purposes of this section, in the case of any private activity
bond, the term `qualified conservation purposes' shall not
include any expenditure which is not a capital expenditure.
``(g) Population.--
``(1) In general.--The population of any State or local
government shall be determined for purposes of this section
as provided in section 146(j) for the calendar year which
includes the date of the enactment of this section.
``(2) Special rule for counties.--In determining the
population of any county for purposes of this section, any
population of such county which is taken into account in
determining the population of any municipality which is a
large local government shall not be taken into account in
determining the population of such county.
``(h) Application to Indian Tribal Governments.--An Indian
tribal government shall be treated for purposes of this
section in the same manner as a large local government,
except that--
``(1) an Indian tribal government shall be treated for
purposes of subsection (e) as located within a State to the
extent of so much of the population of such government as
resides within such State, and
``(2) any bond issued by an Indian tribal government shall
be treated as a qualified energy conservation bond only if
issued as part of an issue the available project proceeds of
which are used for purposes for which such Indian tribal
government could issue bonds to which section 103(a)
applies.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 54A(d), as added by section
106, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Qualified tax credit bond.--The term `qualified tax
credit bond' means--
``(A) a new clean renewable energy bond, or
``(B) a qualified energy conservation bond,
which is part of an issue that meets requirements of
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).''.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 54A(d)(2), as added by
section 106, is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Qualified purpose.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `qualified purpose' means--
``(i) in the case of a new clean renewable energy bond, a
purpose specified in section 54B(a)(1), and
``(ii) in the case of a qualified energy conservation bond,
a purpose specified in section 54C(a)(1).''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart I of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 54C. Qualified energy conservation bonds.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
[[Page 10235]]
SEC. 142. CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Section 25C(g) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31,
2008''.
(b) Qualified Biomass Fuel Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25C(d)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D),
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) a stove which uses the burning of biomass fuel to
heat a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as
a residence by the taxpayer, or to heat water for use in such
a dwelling unit, and which has a thermal efficiency rating of
at least 75 percent.''.
(2) Biomass fuel.--Section 25C(d) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Biomass fuel.--The term `biomass fuel' means any
plant-derived fuel available on a renewable or recurring
basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood
waste and residues (including wood pellets), plants
(including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, and fibers.''.
(c) Coordination With Credit for Qualified Geothermal Heat
Pump Property Expenditures.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 25C(d) is amended
by striking subparagraph (C) and by redesignating
subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (C) and (D),
respectively.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section
25C(d)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Requirements and standards for air conditioners and
heat pumps.--The standards and requirements prescribed by the
Secretary under subparagraph (B) with respect to the energy
efficiency ratio (EER) for central air conditioners and
electric heat pumps--
``(i) shall require measurements to be based on published
data which is tested by manufacturers at 95 degrees
Fahrenheit, and
``(ii) may be based on the certified data of the Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute that are prepared in
partnership with the Consortium for Energy Efficiency.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall
apply to expenditures made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 143. ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION.
Subsection (h) of section 179D is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
SEC. 144. MODIFICATIONS OF ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE CREDIT
FOR APPLIANCES PRODUCED AFTER 2007.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 45M is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Applicable Amount.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(1) Dishwashers.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $45 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2008 or 2009 and which uses no more than 324
kilowatt hours per year and 5.8 gallons per cycle, and
``(B) $75 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010 and which uses no more
than 307 kilowatt hours per year and 5.0 gallons per cycle
(5.5 gallons per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater
than 12 place settings).
``(2) Clothes washers.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $75 in the case of a residential top-loading clothes
washer manufactured in calendar year 2008 which meets or
exceeds a 1.72 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
8.0 water consumption factor,
``(B) $125 in the case of a residential top-loading clothes
washer manufactured in calendar year 2008 or 2009 which meets
or exceeds a 1.8 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
7.5 water consumption factor,
``(C) $150 in the case of a residential or commercial
clothes washer manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or
2010 which meets or exceeds 2.0 modified energy factor and
does not exceed a 6.0 water consumption factor, and
``(D) $250 in the case of a residential or commercial
clothes washer manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or
2010 which meets or exceeds 2.2 modified energy factor and
does not exceed a 4.5 water consumption factor.
``(3) Refrigerators.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $50 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008, and consumes at least 20
percent but not more than 22.9 percent less kilowatt hours
per year than the 2001 energy conservation standards,
``(B) $75 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008 or 2009, and consumes at
least 23 percent but no more than 24.9 percent less kilowatt
hours per year than the 2001 energy conservation standards,
``(C) $100 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010, and
consumes at least 25 percent but not more than 29.9 percent
less kilowatt hours per year than the 2001 energy
conservation standards, and
``(D) $200 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in
calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010 and which consumes at least
30 percent less energy than the 2001 energy conservation
standards.''.
(b) Eligible Production.--
(1) Similar treatment for all appliances.--Subsection (c)
of section 45M is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2),
(B) by striking ``(1) In general'' and all that follows
through ``the eligible'' and inserting ``The eligible'', and
(C) by moving the text of such subsection in line with the
subsection heading and redesignating subparagraphs (A) and
(B) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.
(2) Modification of base period.--Paragraph (2) of section
45M(c), as amended by paragraph (1), is amended by striking
``3-calendar year'' and inserting ``2-calendar year''.
(c) Types of Energy Efficient Appliances.--Subsection (d)
of section 45M (defining types of energy efficient
appliances) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Types of Energy Efficient Appliance.--For purposes of
this section, the types of energy efficient appliances are--
``(1) dishwashers described in subsection (b)(1),
``(2) clothes washers described in subsection (b)(2), and
``(3) refrigerators described in subsection (b)(3).''.
(d) Aggregate Credit Amount Allowed.--
(1) Increase in limit.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(e) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) Aggregate credit amount allowed.--The aggregate
amount of credit allowed under subsection (a) with respect to
a taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $75,000,000
reduced by the amount of the credit allowed under subsection
(a) to the taxpayer (or any predecessor) for all prior
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.''.
(2) Exception for certain refrigerator and clothes
washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(e) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Amount allowed for certain refrigerators and clothes
washers.--Refrigerators described in subsection (b)(3)(D) and
clothes washers described in subsection (b)(2)(D) shall not
be taken into account under paragraph (1).''.
(e) Qualified Energy Efficient Appliances.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(f) (defining
qualified energy efficient appliance) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Qualified energy efficient appliance.--The term
`qualified energy efficient appliance' means--
``(A) any dishwasher described in subsection (b)(1),
``(B) any clothes washer described in subsection (b)(2),
and
``(C) any refrigerator described in subsection (b)(3).''.
(2) Clothes washer.--Section 45M(f)(3) is amended by
inserting ``commercial'' before ``residential'' the second
place it appears.
(3) Top-loading clothes washer.--Subsection (f) of section
45M is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and
(7) as paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively, and
by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) Top-loading clothes washer.--The term `top-loading
clothes washer' means a clothes washer which has the clothes
container compartment access located on the top of the
machine and which operates on a vertical axis.''.
(4) Replacement of energy factor.--Section 45M(f)(6), as
redesignated by paragraph (3), is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Modified energy factor.--The term `modified energy
factor' means the modified energy factor established by the
Department of Energy for compliance with the Federal energy
conservation standard.''.
(5) Gallons per cycle; water consumption factor.--Section
45M(f), as amended by paragraph (3), is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(9) Gallons per cycle.--The term `gallons per cycle'
means, with respect to a dishwasher, the amount of water,
expressed in gallons, required to complete a normal cycle of
a dishwasher.
``(10) Water consumption factor.--The term `water
consumption factor' means, with respect to a clothes washer,
the quotient of the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption divided by the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of
the clothes washer.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 145. ACCELERATED RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF
SMART METERS AND SMART GRID SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Section 168(e)(3)(D) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the
period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and
by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clauses:
``(iii) any qualified smart electric meter, and
``(iv) any qualified smart electric grid system.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 168(i) is amended by inserting at
the end the following new paragraph:
[[Page 10236]]
``(18) Qualified smart electric meters.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified smart electric
meter' means any smart electric meter which is placed in
service by a taxpayer who is a supplier of electric energy or
a provider of electric energy services.
``(B) Smart electric meter.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `smart electric meter' means any time-based
meter and related communication equipment which is capable of
being used by the taxpayer as part of a system that--
``(i) measures and records electricity usage data on a
time-differentiated basis in at least 24 separate time
segments per day,
``(ii) provides for the exchange of information between
supplier or provider and the customer's electric meter in
support of time-based rates or other forms of demand
response,
``(iii) provides data to such supplier or provider so that
the supplier or provider can provide energy usage information
to customers electronically, and
``(iv) provides net metering.
``(19) Qualified smart electric grid systems.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified smart electric grid
system' means any smart grid property used as part of a
system for electric distribution grid communications,
monitoring, and management placed in service by a taxpayer
who is a supplier of electric energy or a provider of
electric energy services.
``(B) Smart grid property.--For the purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `smart grid property' means
electronics and related equipment that is capable of--
``(i) sensing, collecting, and monitoring data of or from
all portions of a utility's electric distribution grid,
``(ii) providing real-time, two-way communications to
monitor or manage such grid, and
``(iii) providing real time analysis of and event
prediction based upon collected data that can be used to
improve electric distribution system reliability, quality,
and performance.''.
(c) Continued Application of 150 Percent Declining Balance
Method.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(b) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) any property (other than property described in
paragraph (3)) which is a qualified smart electric meter or
qualified smart electric grid system, or''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 146. QUALIFIED GREEN BUILDING AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 142(l) is amended
by striking ``September 30, 2009'' and inserting ``September
30, 2012''.
(b) Treatment of Current Refunding Bonds.--Paragraph (9) of
section 142(l) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
(c) Accountability.--The second sentence of section 701(d)
of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is amended by
striking ``issuance,'' and inserting ``issuance of the last
issue with respect to such project,''.
TITLE II--ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Extensions Primarily Affecting Individuals
SEC. 201. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 202. DEDUCTION OF QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED
EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 203. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS OF REGULATED
INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) Interest-Related Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(1) (defining interest-related dividend) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Short-Term Capital Gain Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(2) (defining short-term capital gain dividend)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to dividends with respect to taxable years of
regulated investment companies beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 204. QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1)(E)(vi) and (2)(B)(iii) of
section 170(b) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 205. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 206. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) is
amended by striking ``or 2007'' and inserting ``2007, or
2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 207. ELECTION TO INCLUDE COMBAT PAY AS EARNED INCOME FOR
PURPOSES OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subclause (II) of section 32(c)(2)(B)(vi)
(defining earned income) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 6428(e)
is amended by striking ``except that'' and all that follows
through ``such term'' and inserting ``except that such
term''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 208. MODIFICATION OF MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR
VETERANS.
(a) Qualified Mortgage Bonds Used To Finance Residences for
Veterans Without Regard to First-Time Homebuyer
Requirement.--Subparagraph (D) of section 143(d)(2) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 209. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS TO INDIVIDUALS
CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 72(t)(2)(G) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to individuals ordered or called to active duty
on or after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 210. STOCK IN RIC FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ESTATES OF
NONRESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to decedents dying after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 211. QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2008, except that such
amendment shall not apply to the application of withholding
requirements with respect to any payment made on or before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 212. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED GROUP
LEGAL SERVICES PLANS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 120 is amended
by striking ``shall not apply to taxable years beginning
after June 30, 1992'' and inserting ``shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2007, and before January
1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
Subtitle B--Extensions Primarily Affecting Businesses
SEC. 221. RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 41(h)(1) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Computation of Credit for Taxable Year in Which Credit
Terminates.--Paragraph (2) of section 41(h) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Computation of credit for taxable year in which
credit terminates.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year with
respect to which this section applies to a number of days
which is less than the total number of days in such taxable
year, the applicable base amount with respect to such taxable
year shall be the amount which bears the same ratio to such
applicable amount (determined without regard to this
paragraph) as the number of days in such taxable year to
which this section applies bears to the total number of days
in such taxable year.
``(B) Applicable base amount.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `applicable base amount' means, with respect to
any taxable year--
``(i) except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph,
the base amount for the taxable year,
``(ii) in the case of a taxable year with respect to which
an election under subsection
[[Page 10237]]
(c)(4) (relating to election of alternative incremental
credit) is in effect, the average described in subsection
(c)(1)(B) for the taxable year, and
``(iii) in the case of a taxable year with respect to which
an election under subsection (c)(5) (relating to election of
alternative simplified credit) is in effect, the average
qualified research expenses for the 3 taxable years preceding
the taxable year.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
45C(b)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 222. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 223. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
Subparagraph (D) of section 45D(f)(1) is amended by
striking ``and 2008'' and inserting ``2008, and 2009''.
SEC. 224. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1,
2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred during taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 225. FIFTEEN-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY FOR
QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AND QUALIFIED
RESTAURANT PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Clauses (iv) and (v) of section
168(e)(3)(E) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2008''
and inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 226. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS
RACING TRACK FACILITY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 227. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON
INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 228. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 229. DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 199(d)(8) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``first 2 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 3 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 230. MODIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS
TO CONTROLLING EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 512(b)(13)(E) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments received or accrued after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 231. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subpart I of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1, as amended by sections 106 and 141, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 54D. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
``(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.--For purposes of this
subchapter, the term `qualified zone academy bond' means any
bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of such
issue are to be used for a qualified purpose with respect to
a qualified zone academy established by an eligible local
education agency,
``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such academy is located, and
``(3) the issuer--
``(A) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
``(B) certifies that it has written assurances that the
private business contribution requirement of subsection (b)
will be met with respect to such academy, and
``(C) certifies that it has the written approval of the
eligible local education agency for such bond issuance.
``(b) Private Business Contribution Requirement.--For
purposes of subsection (a), the private business contribution
requirement of this subsection is met with respect to any
issue if the eligible local education agency that established
the qualified zone academy has written commitments from
private entities to make qualified contributions having a
present value (as of the date of issuance of the issue) of
not less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the issue.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) National limitation.--There is a national zone
academy bond limitation for each calendar year. Such
limitation is $400,000,000 for 2008, and, except as provided
in paragraph (4), zero thereafter.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--The national zone academy
bond limitation for a calendar year shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the States on the basis of their respective
populations of individuals below the poverty line (as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget). The limitation
amount allocated to a State under the preceding sentence
shall be allocated by the State education agency to qualified
zone academies within such State.
``(3) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a)
with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed
the limitation amount allocated to such academy under
paragraph (2) for such calendar year.
``(4) Carryover of unused limitation.--
``(A) In general.--If for any calendar year--
``(i) the limitation amount for any State, exceeds
``(ii) the amount of bonds issued during such year which
are designated under subsection (a) with respect to qualified
zone academies within such State,
the limitation amount for such State for the following
calendar year shall be increased by the amount of such
excess.
``(B) Limitation on carryover.--Any carryforward of a
limitation amount may be carried only to the first 2 years
following the unused limitation year. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, a limitation amount shall be treated as
used on a first-in first-out basis.
``(C) Coordination with section 1397e.--Any carryover
determined under section 1397E(e)(4) (relating to carryover
of unused limitation) with respect to any State to calendar
year 2008 shall be treated for purposes of this section as a
carryover with respect to such State for such calendar year
under subparagraph (A), and the limitation of subparagraph
(B) shall apply to such carryover taking into account the
calendar years to which such carryover relates.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified zone academy.--The term `qualified zone
academy' means any public school (or academic program within
a public school) which is established by and operated under
the supervision of an eligible local education agency to
provide education or training below the postsecondary level
if--
``(A) such public school or program (as the case may be) is
designed in cooperation with business to enhance the academic
curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates, and
better prepare students for the rigors of college and the
increasingly complex workforce,
``(B) students in such public school or program (as the
case may be) will be subject to the same academic standards
and assessments as other students educated by the eligible
local education agency,
``(C) the comprehensive education plan of such public
school or program is approved by the eligible local education
agency, and
``(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment
zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or
community designated after the date of the enactment of this
section), or
``(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (as of the date of
issuance of the bonds) that at least 35 percent of the
students attending such school or participating in such
program (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or
reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program
established under the National School Lunch Act.
``(2) Eligible local education agency.--For purposes of
this section, the term `eligible local education agency'
means any local educational agency as defined in section 9101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(3) Qualified purpose.--The term `qualified purpose'
means, with respect to any qualified zone academy--
``(A) rehabilitating or repairing the public school
facility in which the academy is established,
``(B) providing equipment for use at such academy,
``(C) developing course materials for education to be
provided at such academy, and
``(D) training teachers and other school personnel in such
academy.
``(4) Qualified contributions.--The term `qualified
contribution' means any contribution (of a type and quality
acceptable to the eligible local education agency) of--
``(A) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy
(including state-of-the-art technology and vocational
equipment),
[[Page 10238]]
``(B) technical assistance in developing curriculum or in
training teachers in order to promote appropriate market
driven technology in the classroom,
``(C) services of employees as volunteer mentors,
``(D) internships, field trips, or other educational
opportunities outside the academy for students, or
``(E) any other property or service specified by the
eligible local education agency.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 54A(d), as amended by sections
106 and 141, is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (B), and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) a qualified zone academy bond,''.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 54A(d)(2), as amended by
sections 106 and 141, is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of clause (i), by striking the period at the end of
clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``(iii) in the case of a qualified zone academy bond, a
purpose specified in section 54D(a)(1).''.
(3) Section 1397E is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
obligation issued after the date of the enactment of this
Act.''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart I of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 54D. Qualified zone academy bonds.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 232. TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) Designation of Zone.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 1400 is amended
by striking ``2007'' both places it appears and inserting
``2008''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2007.
(b) Tax-Exempt Economic Development Bonds.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 1400A is amended
by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2007.
(c) Zero Percent Capital Gains Rate.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 1400B is amended
by striking ``2008'' each place it appears and inserting
``2009''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1400B(e)(2) is amended--
(i) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013'', and
(ii) by striking ``2012'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2013''.
(B) Section 1400B(g)(2) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2013''.
(C) Section 1400F(d) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2013''.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) Extension.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to acquisitions after December 31, 2007.
(B) Conforming amendments.--The amendments made by
paragraph (2) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(d) First-Time Homebuyer Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (i) of section 1400C is amended
by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2009''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to property purchased after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 233. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT FOR AMERICAN SAMOA.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 119 of division
A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended--
(1) by striking ``first two taxable years'' and inserting
``first 3 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 234. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FOOD INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 235. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
BOOK INVENTORY TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 236. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED COMPUTER
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made during taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 237. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATIONS MAKING
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of section 1367(a)(2) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 238. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR HURRICANE KATRINA
EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 201(b) of the
Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 is amended by
striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``3-year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals hired after August 27, 2007.
SEC. 239. SUBPART F EXCEPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.
(a) Exempt Insurance Income.--Paragraph (10) of section
953(e) (relating to application) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January
1, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Exception to Treatment as Foreign Personal Holding
Company Income.--Paragraph (9) of section 954(h) (relating to
application) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
SEC. 240. LOOK-THRU RULE FOR RELATED CONTROLLED FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 954(c)(6)
(relating to application) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2008, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which such taxable
years of foreign corporations end.
SEC. 241. EXPENSING FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED FILM AND TELEVISION
PRODUCTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 181 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December
31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to productions commencing after December 31,
2008.
Subtitle C--Other Extensions
SEC. 251. AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATED TO
TERRORIST ACTIVITIES MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 6103(i)(3) is
amended by striking clause (iv).
(b) Disclosure on Request.--Paragraph (7) of section
6103(i) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to disclosures after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 252. AUTHORITY FOR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 7608 is amended
by striking paragraph (6).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2008.
SEC. 253. AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE RETURN INFORMATION FOR
CERTAIN VETERANS PROGRAMS MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 6103(l) is
amended by striking the last sentence thereof.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii)(III)
is amended by striking ``sections 1710(a)(1)(I), 1710(a)(2),
1710(b), and 1712(a)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``sections
1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to requests made after September 30, 2008.
SEC. 254. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX
TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United
States after December 31, 2007.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF
Subtitle A--Individual Tax Relief
SEC. 301. ADDITIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY
TAXES FOR NONITEMIZERS.
(a) In General.--Section 63(c)(1) (defining standard
deduction) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2008,
the real property tax deduction.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 63(c) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Real property tax deduction.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the real property tax deduction is the lesser
of--
[[Page 10239]]
``(A) the amount allowable as a deduction under this
chapter for State and local taxes described in section
164(a)(1), or
``(B) $350 ($700 in the case of a joint return).
Any taxes taken into account under section 62(a) shall not be
taken into account under this paragraph.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 302. REFUNDABLE CHILD CREDIT.
(a) Modification of Threshold Amount.--Clause (i) of
section 24(d)(1)(B) is amended by inserting ``($8,500 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2008)'' after ``$10,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 303. INCREASE OF AMT REFUNDABLE CREDIT AMOUNT FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH LONG-TERM UNUSED CREDITS FOR
PRIOR YEAR MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY, ETC.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 53(e) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) AMT refundable credit amount.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `AMT refundable credit amount' means,
with respect to any taxable year, the amount (not in excess
of the long-term unused minimum tax credit for such taxable
year) equal to the greater of--
``(A) 50 percent of the long-term unused minimum tax credit
for such taxable year, or
``(B) the amount (if any) of the AMT refundable credit
amount for the taxpayer's preceding taxable year (determined
without regard to subsection (f)(2)).''.
(b) Treatment of Certain Underpayments, Interest, and
Penalties Attributable to the Treatment of Incentive Stock
Options.--Section 53 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Treatment of Certain Underpayments, Interest, and
Penalties Attributable to the Treatment of Incentive Stock
Options.--
``(1) Abatement.--Any underpayment of tax outstanding on
the date of the enactment of this subsection which is
attributable to the application of section 56(b)(3) for any
taxable year ending before January 1, 2008 (and any interest
or penalty with respect to such underpayment which is
outstanding on such date of enactment), is hereby abated. The
amount determined under subsection (b)(1) shall not include
any tax abated under the preceding sentence.
``(2) Increase in credit for certain interest and penalties
already paid.--The AMT refundable credit amount for the
taxpayer's first 2 taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007, shall each be increased by 50 percent of the aggregate
amount of the interest and penalties which were paid by the
taxpayer before the date of the enactment of this subsection
and which would (but for such payment) have been abated under
paragraph (1).''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Abatement.--Section 53(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as added by subsection (b), shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--Business Related Provisions
SEC. 311. UNIFORM TREATMENT OF ATTORNEY-ADVANCED EXPENSES AND
COURT COSTS IN CONTINGENCY FEE CASES.
(a) In General.--Section 162 is amended by redesignating
subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after
subsection (p) the following new subsection:
``(q) Attorney-Advanced Expenses and Court Costs in
Contingency Fee Cases.--In the case of any expense or court
cost which is paid or incurred in the course of the trade or
business of practicing law and the repayment of which is
contingent on a recovery by judgment or settlement in the
action to which such expense or cost relates, the deduction
under subsection (a) shall be determined as if such expense
or cost was not subject to repayment.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenses and costs paid or incurred in taxable
years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 312. PROVISIONS RELATED TO FILM AND TELEVISION
PRODUCTIONS.
(a) Modification of Limitation on Expensing.--Subparagraph
(A) of section 181(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to so much
of the aggregate cost of any qualified film or television
production as exceeds $15,000,000.''.
(b) Modifications to Deduction for Domestic Activities.--
(1) Determination of w-2 wages.--Paragraph (2) of section
199(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for qualified film.--In the case of a
qualified film, such term shall include compensation for
services performed in the United States by actors, production
personnel, directors, and producers.''.
(2) Definition of qualified film.--Paragraph (6) of section
199(c) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A
qualified film shall include any copyrights, trademarks, or
other intangibles with respect to such film. The methods and
means of distributing a qualified film shall not affect the
availability of the deduction under this section.''.
(3) Partnerships.--Subparagraph (A) of section 199(d)(1) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) in the case of each partner of a partnership, or
shareholder of an S corporation, who owns (directly or
indirectly) at least 20 percent of the capital interests in
such partnership or of the stock of such S corporation--
``(I) such partner or shareholder shall be treated as
having engaged directly in any film produced by such
partnership or S corporation, and
``(II) such partnership or S corporation shall be treated
as having engaged directly in any film produced by such
partner or shareholder.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Expensing.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to qualified film and television productions commencing
after December 31, 2007.
Subtitle C--Modification of Penalty on Understatement of Taxpayer's
Liability by Tax Return Preparer
SEC. 321. 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 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 other than a position
described in subparagraph (C) 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 such
subparagraph (C), to returns prepared for taxable years
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle D--Extension and Expansion of Certain GO Zone Incentives
SEC. 331. CERTAIN GO ZONE INCENTIVES.
(a) Use of Amended Income Tax Returns To Take Into Account
Receipt of Certain Hurricane-Related Casualty Loss Grants by
Disallowing Previously Taken Casualty Loss Deductions.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a taxpayer claims a
deduction for any taxable year with respect to a casualty
loss to a principal residence (within the meaning of section
121 of such Code) resulting from Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane
Rita, or Hurricane Wilma and in a subsequent taxable year
receives a grant under Public Law 109-148, 109-234, or 110-
116 as reimbursement for such loss, such taxpayer may elect
to file an amended income tax return for the taxable year in
which such deduction was allowed (and for any taxable year to
which such deduction is carried) and reduce (but not below
zero) the amount of such deduction by the amount of such
reimbursement.
(2) Time of filing amended return.--Paragraph (1) shall
apply with respect to any grant only if any amended income
tax returns with respect to such grant are filed not later
than the later of--
[[Page 10240]]
(A) the due date for filing the tax return for the taxable
year in which the taxpayer receives such grant, or
(B) the date which is 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) Waiver of penalties and interest.--Any underpayment of
tax resulting from the reduction under paragraph (1) of the
amount otherwise allowable as a deduction shall not be
subject to any penalty or interest under such Code if such
tax is paid not later than 1 year after the filing of the
amended return to which such reduction relates.
(b) Waiver of Deadline on Construction of GO Zone Property
Eligible for Bonus Depreciation.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) without regard to `and before January 1, 2009' in
clause (i) thereof,''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
(c) Inclusion of Certain Counties in Gulf Opportunity Zone
for Purposes of Tax-Exempt Bond Financing.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1400N is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Inclusion of certain counties.--For purposes of this
subsection, the Gulf Opportunity Zone includes Colbert
County, Alabama and Dallas County, Alabama.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 to which it relates.
TITLE IV--REVENUE PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION FROM CERTAIN TAX
INDIFFERENT PARTIES.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part II of subchapter E of
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 457 the
following new section:
``SEC. 457A. NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION FROM CERTAIN
TAX INDIFFERENT PARTIES.
``(a) In General.--Any compensation which is deferred under
a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of a nonqualified
entity shall be includible in gross income when there is no
substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such
compensation.
``(b) Nonqualified Entity.--For purposes of this section,
the term `nonqualified entity' means--
``(1) any foreign corporation unless substantially all of
its income is--
``(A) effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or
business in the United States, or
``(B) subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax, and
``(2) any partnership unless substantially all of its
income is allocated to persons other than--
``(A) foreign persons with respect to whom such income is
not subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax, and
``(B) organizations which are exempt from tax under this
title.
``(c) Determinability of Amounts of Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--If the amount of any compensation is not
determinable at the time that such compensation is otherwise
includible in gross income under subsection (a)--
``(A) such amount shall be so includible in gross income
when determinable, and
``(B) the tax imposed under this chapter for the taxable
year in which such compensation is includible in gross income
shall be increased by the sum of--
``(i) the amount of interest determined under paragraph
(2), and
``(ii) an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of such
compensation.
``(2) Interest.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(i), the
interest determined under this paragraph for any taxable year
is the amount of interest at the underpayment rate under
section 6621 plus 1 percentage point on the underpayments
that would have occurred had the deferred compensation been
includible in gross income for the taxable year in which
first deferred or, if later, the first taxable year in which
such deferred compensation is not subject to a substantial
risk of forfeiture.
``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Substantial risk of forfeiture.--
``(A) In general.--The rights of a person to compensation
shall be treated as subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture only if such person's rights to such compensation
are conditioned upon the future performance of substantial
services by any individual.
``(B) Exception for compensation based on gain recognized
on an investment asset.--
``(i) In general.--To the extent provided in regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, if compensation is determined
solely by reference to the amount of gain recognized on the
disposition of an investment asset, such compensation shall
be treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture
until the date of such disposition.
``(ii) Investment asset.--For purposes of clause (i), the
term `investment asset' means any single asset (other than an
investment fund or similar entity)--
``(I) acquired directly by an investment fund or similar
entity,
``(II) with respect to which such entity does not (nor does
any person related to such entity) participate in the active
management of such asset (or if such asset is an interest in
an entity, in the active management of the activities of such
entity), and
``(III) substantially all of any gain on the disposition of
which (other than such deferred compensation) is allocated to
investors in such entity.
``(iii) Coordination with special rule.--Paragraph (3)(B)
shall not apply to any compensation to which clause (i)
applies.
``(2) Comprehensive foreign income tax.--The term
`comprehensive foreign income tax' means, with respect to any
foreign person, the income tax of a foreign country if--
``(A) such person is eligible for the benefits of a
comprehensive income tax treaty between such foreign country
and the United States, or
``(B) such person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that such foreign country has a comprehensive
income tax.
``(3) Nonqualified deferred compensation plan.--
``(A) In general.--The term `nonqualified deferred
compensation plan' has the meaning given such term under
section 409A(d), except that such term shall include any plan
that provides a right to compensation based on the
appreciation in value of a specified number of equity units
of the service recipient.
``(B) Exception.--Compensation shall not be treated as
deferred for purposes of this section if the service provider
receives payment of such compensation not later than 12
months after the end of the taxable year of the service
recipient during which the right to the payment of such
compensation is no longer subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture.
``(4) Exception for certain compensation with respect to
effectively connected income.--In the case a foreign
corporation with income which is taxable under section 882,
this section shall not apply to compensation which, had such
compensation had been paid in cash on the date that such
compensation ceased to be subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture, would have been deductible by such foreign
corporation against such income.
``(5) Application of rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 409A(d) shall apply.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations
disregarding a substantial risk of forfeiture in cases where
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 26(b)(2) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (U), by striking
the period at the end of subparagraph (V) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(W) section 457A(c)(1)(B) (relating to determinability of
amounts of compensation).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of subpart B
of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 457 the
following new item:
``Sec. 457A. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax
indifferent parties.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to amounts deferred which are attributable to services
performed after December 31, 2008.
(2) Application to existing deferrals.--In the case of any
amount deferred to which the amendments made by this section
do not apply solely by reason of the fact that the amount is
attributable to services performed before January 1, 2009, to
the extent such amount is not includible in gross income in a
taxable year beginning before 2018, such amounts shall be
includible in gross income in the later of--
(A) the last taxable year beginning before 2018, or
(B) the taxable year in which there is no substantial risk
of forfeiture of the rights to such compensation (determined
in the same manner as determined for purposes of section 457A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this
section).
(3) Charitable contributions of existing deferrals
permitted.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 170(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any qualified contribution
shall be allowed as a deduction under section 170 of such
Code for the taxpayer's last taxable year beginning before
2018 to the extent the aggregate of such contributions made
during such taxable year does not exceed the excess of the
qualified inclusion amount over the amount of the deduction
for all other charitable contributions allowable under
section 170 of such Code for such taxable year. Proper
adjustments shall be made under section 170(d) to take
account of the preceding sentence.
[[Page 10241]]
(B) Qualified contribution.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``qualified contribution'' means any
charitable contribution (as defined in section 170(c) of such
Code) made during taxpayer's last taxable year beginning
before 2018 if such contribution is paid in cash to an
organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A) of such Code
(other than any organization described in section 509(a)(3)
of such Code or any fund or account described in section
4966(d)(2) of such Code).
(C) Qualified inclusion amount.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``qualified inclusion amount'' means the
amount includible in the taxpayer's gross income for the last
taxable year beginning before 2018 by reason of paragraph
(2).
(4) Accelerated payments.--No later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue
guidance providing a limited period of time during which a
nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement attributable
to services performed on or before December 31, 2008, may,
without violating the requirements of section 409A(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be amended to conform the date
of distribution to the date the amounts are required to be
included in income.
(5) Certain back-to-back arrangements.--If the taxpayer is
also a service recipient and maintains one or more
nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements for its
service providers under which any amount is attributable to
services performed on or before December 31, 2008, the
guidance issued under paragraph (4) shall permit such
arrangements to be amended to conform the dates of
distribution under such arrangement to the date amounts are
required to be included in the income of such taxpayer under
this subsection.
(6) Accelerated payment not treated as material
modification.--Any amendment to a nonqualified deferred
compensation arrangement made pursuant to paragraph (4) or
(5) shall not be treated as a material modification of the
arrangement for purposes of section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 402. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCATION OF
INTEREST.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of section
864(f) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.
SEC. 403. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.
(a) Repeal of Adjustment for 2012.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 401(1) of the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking the
percentage contained therein and inserting ``100 percent''.
(b) Modification of Adjustment for 2013.--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 36.75
percentage points.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1212, 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. 6049
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 ``Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008''.
(b) Reference.--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 for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title, etc.
TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--Energy Production Incentives
Part I--Renewable Energy Incentives
Sec. 101. Renewable energy credit.
Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine
renewables.
Sec. 103. Energy credit.
Sec. 104. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
Sec. 105. Special rule to implement FERC and State electric
restructuring policy.
Sec. 106. New clean renewable energy bonds.
Part II--Carbon Mitigation Provisions
Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project
investment credit.
Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment
credit.
Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax.
Sec. 114. Special rules for refund of the coal excise tax to certain
coal producers and exporters.
Sec. 115. Carbon audit of the tax code.
Subtitle B--Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions
Sec. 121. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for
biomass ethanol plant property.
Sec. 122. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
Sec. 123. Clarification that credits for fuel are designed to provide
an incentive for United States production.
Sec. 124. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor
vehicles.
Sec. 125. Exclusion from heavy truck tax for idling reduction units and
advanced insulation.
Sec. 126. Restructuring of New York Liberty Zone tax credits.
Sec. 127. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.
Sec. 128. Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit.
Subtitle C--Energy Conservation and Efficiency Provisions
Sec. 141. Qualified energy conservation bonds.
Sec. 142. Credit for nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 143. Energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.
Sec. 144. Modifications of energy efficient appliance credit for
appliances produced after 2007.
Sec. 145. Accelerated recovery period for depreciation of smart meters
and smart grid systems.
Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design projects.
TITLE II--ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Extensions Primarily Affecting Individuals
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment
companies.
Sec. 204. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for
charitable purposes.
Sec. 205. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers.
Sec. 206. Election to include combat pay as earned income for purposes
of earned income tax credit.
Sec. 207. Modification of mortgage revenue bonds for veterans.
Sec. 208. Distributions from retirement plans to individuals called to
active duty.
Sec. 209. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of
nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 210. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 211. Exclusion of amounts received under qualified group legal
services plans.
Subtitle B--Extensions Primarily Affecting Businesses
Sec. 221. Research credit.
Sec. 222. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 223. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 224. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 225. Fifteen-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified
leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant property.
Sec. 226. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track
facility.
Sec. 227. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian
reservation.
Sec. 228. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 229. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to
domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 230. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to
controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 231. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 232. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 233. Economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 234. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
Sec. 235. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book
inventory to public schools.
Sec. 236. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 237. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable
contributions of property.
Sec. 238. Work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 239. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 240. Look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 241. Expensing for certain qualified film and television
productions.
Subtitle C--Other Extensions
Sec. 251. Authority to disclose information related to terrorist
activities made permanent.
Sec. 252. Authority for undercover operations made permanent.
Sec. 253. Authority to disclose return information for certain veterans
programs made permanent.
Sec. 254. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 255. Parity in the application of certain limits to mental health
benefits.
[[Page 10242]]
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF
Subtitle A--Individual Tax Relief
Sec. 301. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for
nonitemizers.
Sec. 302. Refundable child credit.
Sec. 303. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with
long-term unused credits for prior year minimum tax
liability, etc.
Subtitle B--Business Related Provisions
Sec. 311. Uniform treatment of attorney-advanced expenses and court
costs in contingency fee cases.
Sec. 312. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Subtitle C--Modification of Penalty on Understatement of Taxpayer's
Liability by Tax Return Preparer
Sec. 321. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's
liability by tax return preparer.
Subtitle D--Extension and Expansion of Certain GO Zone Incentives
Sec. 331. Certain GO Zone incentives.
TITLE IV--REVENUE PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax
indifferent parties.
Sec. 402. Delay in application of worldwide allocation of interest.
Sec. 403. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.
TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--Energy Production Incentives
PART I--RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVES
SEC. 101. RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT.
(a) Extension of Credit.--
(1) 1-year extension for wind facilities.--Paragraph (1) of
section 45(d) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(2) 3-year extension for certain other facilities.--Each of
the following provisions of section 45(d) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January 1,
2012'':
(A) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A).
(B) Clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A).
(C) Paragraph (4).
(D) Paragraph (5).
(E) Paragraph (6).
(F) Paragraph (7).
(G) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (9).
(b) Modification of Credit Phaseout.--
(1) Repeal of phaseout.--Subsection (b) of section 45 is
amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1), and
(B) by striking ``the 8 cent amount in paragraph (1),'' in
paragraph (2) thereof.
(2) Limitation based on investment in facility.--Subsection
(b) of section 45 is amended by inserting before paragraph
(2) the following new paragraph:
``(1) Limitation based on investment in facility.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any qualified facility
originally placed in service after December 31, 2009, the
amount of the credit determined under subsection (a) for any
taxable year with respect to electricity produced at such
facility shall not exceed the product of--
``(i) the applicable percentage with respect to such
facility, multiplied by
``(ii) the eligible basis of such facility.
``(B) Carryforward of unused limitation and excess
credit.--
``(i) Unused limitation.--If the limitation imposed under
subparagraph (A) with respect to any facility for any taxable
year exceeds the prelimitation credit for such facility for
such taxable year, the limitation imposed under subparagraph
(A) with respect to such facility for the succeeding taxable
year shall be increased by the amount of such excess.
``(ii) Excess credit.--If the prelimitation credit with
respect to any facility for any taxable year exceeds the
limitation imposed under subparagraph (A) with respect to
such facility for such taxable year, the credit determined
under subsection (a) with respect to such facility for the
succeeding taxable year (determined before the application of
subparagraph (A) for such succeeding taxable year) shall be
increased by the amount of such excess. With respect to any
facility, no amount may be carried forward under this clause
to any taxable year beginning after the 10-year period
described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii) with respect to such
facility.
``(iii) Prelimitation credit.--The term `prelimitation
credit' with respect to any facility for a taxable year means
the credit determined under subsection (a) with respect to
such facility for such taxable year, determined without
regard to subparagraph (A) and after taking into account any
increase for such taxable year under clause (ii).
``(C) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means,
with respect to any facility, the appropriate percentage
prescribed by the Secretary for the month in which such
facility is originally placed in service.
``(ii) Method of prescribing applicable percentages.--The
applicable percentages prescribed by the Secretary for any
month under clause (i) shall be percentages which yield over
a 10-year period amounts of limitation under subparagraph (A)
which have a present value equal to 35 percent of the
eligible basis of the facility.
``(iii) Method of discounting.--The present value under
clause (ii) shall be determined--
``(I) as of the last day of the 1st year of the 10-year
period referred to in clause (ii),
``(II) by using a discount rate equal to the greater of 110
percent of the Federal long-term rate as in effect under
section 1274(d) for the month preceding the month for which
the applicable percentage is being prescribed, or 4.5
percent, and
``(III) by taking into account the limitation under
subparagraph (A) for any year on the last day of such year.
``(D) Eligible basis.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `eligible basis' means, with
respect to any facility, the sum of--
``(I) the basis of such facility determined as of the time
that such facility is originally placed in service, and
``(II) the portion of the basis of any shared qualified
property which is properly allocable to such facility under
clause (ii).
``(ii) Rules for allocation.--For purposes of subclause
(II) of clause (i), the basis of shared qualified property
shall be allocated among all qualified facilities which are
projected to be placed in service and which require
utilization of such property in proportion to projected
generation from such facilities.
``(iii) Shared qualified property.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `shared qualified property' means, with
respect to any facility, any property described in section
168(e)(3)(B)(vi)--
``(I) which a qualified facility will require for
utilization of such facility, and
``(II) which is not a qualified facility.
``(iv) Special rule relating to geothermal facilities.--In
the case of any qualified facility using geothermal energy to
produce electricity, the basis of such facility for purposes
of this paragraph shall be determined as though intangible
drilling and development costs described in section 263(c)
were capitalized rather than expensed.
``(E) Special rule for first and last year of credit
period.--In the case of any taxable year any portion of which
is not within the 10-year period described in subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii) with respect to any facility, the amount of the
limitation under subparagraph (A) with respect to such
facility shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same
ratio to the amount of such limitation (determined without
regard to this subparagraph) as such portion of the taxable
year which is not within such period bears to the entire
taxable year.
``(F) Election to treat all facilities placed in service in
a year as 1 facility.--At the election of the taxpayer, all
qualified facilities which are part of the same project and
which are placed in service during the same calendar year
shall be treated for purposes of this section as 1 facility
which is placed in service at the mid-point of such year or
the first day of the following calendar year.''.
(c) Trash Facility Clarification.--Paragraph (7) of section
45(d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``facility which burns'' and inserting
``facility (other than a facility described in paragraph (6))
which uses'', and
(2) by striking ``combustion''.
(d) Expansion of Biomass Facilities.--
(1) Open-loop biomass facilities.--Paragraph (3) of section
45(d) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Expansion of facility.--Such term shall include a new
unit placed in service after the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph in connection with a facility described in
subparagraph (A), but only to the extent of the increased
amount of electricity produced at the facility by reason of
such new unit.''.
(2) Closed-loop biomass facilities.--Paragraph (2) of
section 45(d) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Expansion of facility.--Such term shall include a new
unit placed in service after the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph in connection with a facility described in
subparagraph (A)(i), but only to the extent of the increased
amount of electricity produced at the facility by reason of
such new unit.''.
(e) Sales of Net Electricity to Regulated Public Utilities
Treated as Sales to Unrelated Persons.--Paragraph (4) of
section 45(e) is amended by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``The net amount of electricity sold by any
taxpayer to a regulated public utility (as defined in section
7701(a)(33)) shall be treated as sold to an unrelated
person.''.
(f) Modification of Rules for Hydropower Production.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 45(c)(8) is amended to read as
follows:
``(C) Nonhydroelectric dam.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), a facility is described in this subparagraph if--
``(i) the hydroelectric project installed on the
nonhydroelectric dam is licensed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and meets all other applicable
environmental, licensing, and regulatory requirements,
``(ii) the nonhydroelectric dam was placed in service
before the date of the enactment of this paragraph and
operated for flood control, navigation, or water supply
purposes and did not produce hydroelectric power on the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, and
``(iii) the hydroelectric project is operated so that the
water surface elevation at any given location and time that
would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric
project is maintained, subject to any license requirements
imposed under applicable law that change the
[[Page 10243]]
water surface elevation for the purpose of improving
environmental quality of the affected waterway.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, shall certify if a hydroelectric
project licensed at a nonhydroelectric dam meets the criteria
in clause (iii). Nothing in this section shall affect the
standards under which the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission issues licenses for and regulates hydropower
projects under part I of the Federal Power Act.''.
(g) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to property originally placed in service after December 31,
2008.
(2) Repeal of credit phaseout.--The amendments made by
subsection (b)(1) shall apply to taxable years ending after
December 31, 2008.
(3) Limitation based on investment in facility.--The
amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall apply to property
originally placed in service after December 31, 2009.
(4) Trash facility clarification; sales to related
regulated public utilities.--The amendments made by
subsections (c) and (e) shall apply to electricity produced
and sold after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(5) Expansion of biomass facilities.--The amendments made
by subsection (d) shall apply to property placed in service
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. PRODUCTION CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM
MARINE RENEWABLES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(I) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.''.
(b) Marine Renewables.--Subsection (c) of section 45 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.--
``(A) In general.--The term `marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy' means energy derived from--
``(i) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and
tidal areas,
``(ii) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams,
``(iii) free flowing water in an irrigation system, canal,
or other man-made channel, including projects that utilize
nonmechanical structures to accelerate the flow of water for
electric power production purposes, or
``(iv) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal
energy conversion).
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include any energy
which is derived from any source which utilizes a dam,
diversionary structure (except as provided in subparagraph
(A)(iii)), or impoundment for electric power production
purposes.''.
(c) Definition of Facility.--Subsection (d) of section 45
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
facilities.--In the case of a facility producing electricity
from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, the term
`qualified facility' means any facility owned by the
taxpayer--
``(A) which has a nameplate capacity rating of at least 150
kilowatts, and
``(B) which is originally placed in service on or after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph and before January 1,
2012.''.
(d) Credit Rate.--Subparagraph (A) of section 45(b)(4) is
amended by striking ``or (9)'' and inserting ``(9), or
(11)''.
(e) Coordination With Small Irrigation Power.--Paragraph
(5) of section 45(d), as amended by section 101, is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``the date of
the enactment of paragraph (11)''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced and sold after the date
of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after
such date.
SEC. 103. ENERGY CREDIT.
(a) Extension of Credit.--
(1) Solar energy property.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and
(3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) are each amended by striking
``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2015''.
(2) Fuel cell property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(3) Microturbine property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(2) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(b) Allowance of Energy Credit Against Alternative Minimum
Tax.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by redesignating
clause (iv) as clause (v), and by inserting after clause
(iii) the following new clause:
``(iv) the credit determined under section 46 to the extent
that such credit is attributable to the energy credit
determined under section 48, and''.
(c) Energy Credit for Combined Heat and Power System
Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 48(a)(3)(A) (defining energy
property) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause
(iii), by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (iv), and by
adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) combined heat and power system property,''.
(2) Combined heat and power system property.--Section 48 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Combined Heat and Power System Property.--For
purposes of subsection (a)(3)(A)(v)--
``(1) Combined heat and power system property.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' means property
comprising a system--
``(A) which uses the same energy source for the
simultaneous or sequential generation of electrical power,
mechanical shaft power, or both, in combination with the
generation of steam or other forms of useful thermal energy
(including heating and cooling applications),
``(B) which produces--
``(i) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in the
form of thermal energy which is not used to produce
electrical or mechanical power (or combination thereof), and
``(ii) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in
the form of electrical or mechanical power (or combination
thereof),
``(C) the energy efficiency percentage of which exceeds 60
percent, and
``(D) which is placed in service before January 1, 2015.
``(2) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of combined heat and power
system property with an electrical capacity in excess of the
applicable capacity placed in service during the taxable
year, the credit under subsection (a)(1) (determined without
regard to this paragraph) for such year shall be equal to the
amount which bears the same ratio to such credit as the
applicable capacity bears to the capacity of such property.
``(B) Applicable capacity.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `applicable capacity' means 15 megawatts or a
mechanical energy capacity of more than 20,000 horsepower or
an equivalent combination of electrical and mechanical energy
capacities.
``(C) Maximum capacity.--The term `combined heat and power
system property' shall not include any property comprising a
system if such system has a capacity in excess of 50
megawatts or a mechanical energy capacity in excess of 67,000
horsepower or an equivalent combination of electrical and
mechanical energy capacities.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Energy efficiency percentage.--For purposes of this
subsection, the energy efficiency percentage of a system is
the fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the total useful
electrical, thermal, and mechanical power produced by the
system at normal operating rates, and expected to be consumed
in its normal application, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is the lower heating value
of the fuel sources for the system.
``(B) Determinations made on btu basis.--The energy
efficiency percentage and the percentages under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be determined on a Btu basis.
``(C) Input and output property not included.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' does not include
property used to transport the energy source to the facility
or to distribute energy produced by the facility.
``(4) Systems using biomass.--If a system is designed to
use biomass (within the meaning of paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 45(c) without regard to the last sentence of
paragraph (3)(A)) for at least 90 percent of the energy
source--
``(A) paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply, but
``(B) the amount of credit determined under subsection (a)
with respect to such system shall not exceed the amount which
bears the same ratio to such amount of credit (determined
without regard to this paragraph) as the energy efficiency
percentage of such system bears to 60 percent.''.
(d) Increase of Credit Limitation for Fuel Cell Property.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 48(c)(1) is amended by striking
``$500'' and inserting ``$1,500''.
(e) Public Utility Property Taken Into Account.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 48(a) is amended
by striking the second sentence thereof.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (1) of section 48(c) is amended by striking
subparagraph (D) and redesignating subparagraph (E) as
subparagraph (D).
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 48(c) is amended by striking
subparagraph (D) and redesignating subparagraph (E) as
subparagraph (D).
(f) 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) Allowance against alternative minimum tax.--The
amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to credits
determined under section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 in taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to carrybacks of such credits.
(3) Combined heat and power and fuel cell property.--The
amendments made by subsections (c) and (d) shall apply to
periods after the date of the enactment of this Act, in
taxable years ending after such date, under rules similar to
the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
(4) Public utility property.--The amendments made by
subsection (e) shall apply to periods after February 13,
2008, in taxable years
[[Page 10244]]
ending after such date, under rules similar to the rules of
section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 104. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT PROPERTY.
(a) Extension.--Section 25D(g) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(b) Maximum Credit for Solar Electric Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(b)(1)(A) is amended by
striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$4,000''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 25D(e)(4)(A)(i) is
amended by striking ``$6,667'' and inserting ``$13,333''.
(c) Credit for Residential Wind Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(a) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) 30 percent of the qualified small wind energy
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such
year.''.
(2) Limitation.--Section 25D(b)(1) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) $500 with respect to each half kilowatt of capacity
(not to exceed $4,000) of wind turbines for which qualified
small wind energy property expenditures are made.''.
(3) Qualified small wind energy property expenditures.--
(A) In general.--Section 25D(d) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Qualified small wind energy property expenditure.--
The term `qualified small wind energy property expenditure'
means an expenditure for property which uses a wind turbine
to generate electricity for use in connection with a dwelling
unit located in the United States and used as a residence by
the taxpayer.''.
(B) No double benefit.--Section 45(d)(1) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term
shall not include any facility with respect to which any
qualified small wind energy property expenditure (as defined
in subsection (d)(4) of section 25D) is taken into account in
determining the credit under such section.''.
(4) Maximum expenditures in case of joint occupancy.--
Section 25D(e)(4)(A) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of
clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new clause:
``(iv) $1,667 in the case of each half kilowatt of capacity
(not to exceed $13,333) of wind turbines for which qualified
small wind energy property expenditures are made.''.
(d) Credit for Geothermal Heat pump Systems.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(a), as amended by subsection
(c), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(3), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) 30 percent of the qualified geothermal heat pump
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such
year.''.
(2) Limitation.--Section 25D(b)(1), as amended by
subsection (c), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) $2,000 with respect to any qualified geothermal heat
pump property expenditures.''.
(3) Qualified geothermal heat pump property expenditure.--
Section 25D(d), as amended by subsection (c), is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Qualified geothermal heat pump property
expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified geothermal heat pump
property expenditure' means an expenditure for qualified
geothermal heat pump property installed on or in connection
with a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as
a residence by the taxpayer.
``(B) Qualified geothermal heat pump property.--The term
`qualified geothermal heat pump property' means any equipment
which--
``(i) uses the ground or ground water as a thermal energy
source to heat the dwelling unit referred to in subparagraph
(A) or as a thermal energy sink to cool such dwelling unit,
and
``(ii) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program
which are in effect at the time that the expenditure for such
equipment is made.''.
(4) Maximum expenditures in case of joint occupancy.--
Section 25D(e)(4)(A), as amended by subsection (c), is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) $6,667 in the case of any qualified geothermal heat
pump property expenditures.''.
(e) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 25D is amended
to read as follows:
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax; Carryforward of
Unused Credit.--
``(1) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a
taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year
shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart
(other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable
year.
``(2) Carryforward of unused credit.--
``(A) Rule for years in which all personal credits allowed
against regular and alternative minimum tax.--In the case of
a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) applies, if the
credit allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation
imposed by section 26(a)(2) for such taxable year reduced by
the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other
than this section), such excess shall be carried to the
succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable
under subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(B) Rule for other years.--In the case of a taxable year
to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, if the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such succeeding
taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 23(b)(4)(B) is amended by inserting ``and
section 25D'' after ``this section''.
(B) Section 24(b)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``and 25B''
and inserting ``, 25B, and 25D''.
(C) Section 25B(g)(2) is amended by striking ``section 23''
and inserting ``sections 23 and 25D''.
(D) Section 26(a)(1) is amended by striking ``and 25B'' and
inserting ``25B, and 25D''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Application of egtrra sunset.--The amendments made by
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (e)(2) shall be
subject to title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 in the same manner as the
provisions of such Act to which such amendments relate.
SEC. 105. SPECIAL RULE TO IMPLEMENT FERC AND STATE ELECTRIC
RESTRUCTURING POLICY.
(a) Extension for Qualified Electric Utilities.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) is amended
by inserting ``(before January 1, 2010, in the case of a
qualified electric utility)'' after ``January 1, 2008''.
(2) Qualified electric utility.--Subsection (i) of section
451 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10)
as paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively, and by
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) Qualified electric utility.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified electric utility' means a
person that, as of the date of the qualifying electric
transmission transaction, is vertically integrated, in that
it is both--
``(A) a transmitting utility (as defined in section 3(23)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(23))) with respect to
the transmission facilities to which the election under this
subsection applies, and
``(B) an electric utility (as defined in section 3(22) of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(22))).''.
(b) Extension of Period for Transfer of Operational Control
Authorized by FERC.--Clause (ii) of section 451(i)(4)(B) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``the
date which is 4 years after the close of the taxable year in
which the transaction occurs''.
(c) Property Located Outside the United States Not Treated
as Exempt Utility Property.--Paragraph (5) of section 451(i)
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Exception for property located outside the united
states.--The term `exempt utility property' shall not include
any property which is located outside the United States.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to transactions after December 31, 2007.
(2) Transfers of operational control.--The amendment made
by subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in section
909 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
(3) Exception for property located outside the united
states.--The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply to
transactions after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. NEW CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:
``Subpart I--Qualified Tax Credit Bonds
``Sec. 54A. Credit to holders of qualified tax credit bonds.
``Sec. 54B. New clean renewable energy bonds.
``SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--If a taxpayer holds a qualified
tax credit bond on one or more credit allowance dates of the
bond during any taxable year, there shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the credits
determined under subsection (b) with respect to such dates.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to
[[Page 10245]]
any credit allowance date for a qualified tax credit bond is
25 percent of the annual credit determined with respect to
such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified tax credit bond is the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the applicable credit rate is the rate which the
Secretary estimates will permit the issuance of qualified tax
credit bonds with a specified maturity or redemption date
without discount and without interest cost to the qualified
issuer. The applicable credit rate with respect to any
qualified tax credit bond shall be determined as of the first
day on which there is a binding, written contract for the
sale or exchange of the bond.
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed or matures.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than subpart C and this subpart).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year
(determined before the application of paragraph (1) for such
succeeding taxable year).
``(d) Qualified Tax Credit Bond.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Qualified tax credit bond.--The term `qualified tax
credit bond' means a new clean renewable energy bond which is
part of an issue that meets the requirements of paragraphs
(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
``(2) Special rules relating to expenditures.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph if, as of the date of
issuance, the issuer reasonably expects--
``(i) 100 percent or more of the available project proceeds
to be spent for 1 or more qualified purposes within the 3-
year period beginning on such date of issuance, and
``(ii) a binding commitment with a third party to spend at
least 10 percent of such available project proceeds will be
incurred within the 6-month period beginning on such date of
issuance.
``(B) Failure to spend required amount of bond proceeds
within 3 years.--
``(i) In general.--To the extent that less than 100 percent
of the available project proceeds of the issue are expended
by the close of the expenditure period for 1 or more
qualified purposes, the issuer shall redeem all of the
nonqualified bonds within 90 days after the end of such
period. For purposes of this paragraph, the amount of the
nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed shall be
determined in the same manner as under section 142.
``(ii) Expenditure period.--For purposes of this subpart,
the term `expenditure period' means, with respect to any
issue, the 3-year period beginning on the date of issuance.
Such term shall include any extension of such period under
clause (iii).
``(iii) Extension of period.--Upon submission of a request
prior to the expiration of the expenditure period (determined
without regard to any extension under this clause), the
Secretary may extend such period if the issuer establishes
that the failure to expend the proceeds within the original
expenditure period is due to reasonable cause and the
expenditures for qualified purposes will continue to proceed
with due diligence.
``(C) Qualified purpose.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `qualified purpose' means a purpose specified in
section 54B(a)(1).
``(D) Reimbursement.--For purposes of this subtitle,
available project proceeds of an issue shall be treated as
spent for a qualified purpose if such proceeds are used to
reimburse the issuer for amounts paid for a qualified purpose
after the date that the Secretary makes an allocation of bond
limitation with respect to such issue, but only if--
``(i) prior to the payment of the original expenditure, the
issuer declared its intent to reimburse such expenditure with
the proceeds of a qualified tax credit bond,
``(ii) not later than 60 days after payment of the original
expenditure, the issuer adopts an official intent to
reimburse the original expenditure with such proceeds, and
``(iii) the reimbursement is made not later than 18 months
after the date the original expenditure is paid.
``(3) Reporting.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph if the issuer of qualified tax
credit bonds submits reports similar to the reports required
under section 149(e).
``(4) Special rules relating to arbitrage.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph if the issuer satisfies the
requirements of section 148 with respect to the proceeds of
the issue.
``(B) Special rule for investments during expenditure
period.--An issue shall not be treated as failing to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A) by reason of any investment
of available project proceeds during the expenditure period.
``(C) Special rule for reserve funds.--An issue shall not
be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A) by reason of any fund which is expected to
be used to repay such issue if--
``(i) such fund is funded at a rate not more rapid than
equal annual installments,
``(ii) such fund is funded in a manner reasonably expected
to result in an amount not greater than an amount necessary
to repay the issue, and
``(iii) the yield on such fund is not greater than the
discount rate determined under paragraph (5)(B) with respect
to the issue.
``(5) Maturity limitation.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as meeting
the requirements of this paragraph if the maturity of any
bond which is part of such issue exceeds the maximum term
determined by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Maximum term.--During each calendar month, the
Secretary shall determine the maximum term permitted under
this paragraph for bonds issued during the following calendar
month. Such maximum term shall be the term which the
Secretary estimates will result in the present value of the
obligation to repay the principal on the bond being equal to
50 percent of the face amount of such bond. Such present
value shall be determined using as a discount rate the
average annual interest rate of tax-exempt obligations having
a term of 10 years or more which are issued during the month.
If the term as so determined is not a multiple of a whole
year, such term shall be rounded to the next highest whole
year.
``(6) Prohibition on financial conflicts of interest.--An
issue shall be treated as meeting the requirements of this
paragraph if the issuer certifies that--
``(A) applicable State and local law requirements governing
conflicts of interest are satisfied with respect to such
issue, and
``(B) if the Secretary prescribes additional conflicts of
interest rules governing the appropriate Members of Congress,
Federal, State, and local officials, and their spouses, such
additional rules are satisfied with respect to such issue.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of
Columbia and any possession of the United States.
``(4) Available project proceeds.--The term `available
project proceeds' means--
``(A) the excess of--
``(i) the proceeds from the sale of an issue, over
``(ii) the issuance costs financed by the issue (to the
extent that such costs do not exceed 2 percent of such
proceeds), and
``(B) the proceeds from any investment of the excess
described in subparagraph (A).
``(f) Credit Treated as Interest.--For purposes of this
subtitle, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
treated as interest which is includible in gross income.
``(g) S Corporations and Partnerships.--In the case of a
tax credit bond held by an S corporation or partnership, the
allocation of the credit allowed by this section to the
shareholders of such corporation or partners of such
partnership shall be treated as a distribution.
``(h) Bonds Held by Regulated Investment Companies and Real
Estate Investment Trusts.--If any qualified tax credit bond
is held by a regulated investment company or a real estate
investment trust, the credit determined under subsection (a)
shall be allowed to shareholders of such company or
beneficiaries of such trust (and any gross income included
under subsection (f) with respect to such credit shall be
treated as distributed to such shareholders or beneficiaries)
under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.
``(i) Credits May Be Stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(1) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a qualified tax credit bond and
the entitlement to the credit under this section with respect
to such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit
under this section shall be allowed to the person who on the
credit allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the
entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
``(2) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in paragraph (1), the rules of section 1286 shall
apply to the qualified tax credit bond as if it were a
stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it
were a stripped coupon.
``SEC. 54B. NEW CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
``(a) New Clean Renewable Energy Bond.--For purposes of
this subpart, the term `new
[[Page 10246]]
clean renewable energy bond' means any bond issued as part of
an issue if--
``(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of such
issue are to be used for capital expenditures incurred by
public power providers or cooperative electric companies for
one or more qualified renewable energy facilities,
``(2) the bond is issued by a qualified issuer, and
``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section.
``(b) Reduced Credit Amount.--The annual credit determined
under section 54A(b) with respect to any new clean renewable
energy bond shall be 70 percent of the amount so determined
without regard to this subsection.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--The maximum aggregate face amount of
bonds which may be designated under subsection (a) by any
issuer shall not exceed the limitation amount allocated under
this subsection to such issuer.
``(2) National limitation on amount of bonds designated.--
There is a national new clean renewable energy bond
limitation of $2,000,000,000 which shall be allocated by the
Secretary as provided in paragraph (3), except that--
``(A) not more than 33\1/3\ percent thereof may be
allocated to qualified projects of public power providers,
``(B) not more than 33\1/3\ percent thereof may be
allocated to qualified projects of governmental bodies, and
``(C) not more than 33\1/3\ percent thereof may be
allocated to qualified projects of cooperative electric
companies.
``(3) Method of allocation.--
``(A) Allocation among public power providers.--After the
Secretary determines the qualified projects of public power
providers which are appropriate for receiving an allocation
of the national new clean renewable energy bond limitation,
the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make
allocations among such projects in such manner that the
amount allocated to each such project bears the same ratio to
the cost of such project as the limitation under paragraph
(2)(A) bears to the cost of all such projects.
``(B) Allocation among governmental bodies and cooperative
electric companies.--The Secretary shall make allocations of
the amount of the national new clean renewable energy bond
limitation described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) among
qualified projects of governmental bodies and cooperative
electric companies, respectively, in such manner as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified renewable energy facility.--The term
`qualified renewable energy facility' means a qualified
facility (as determined under section 45(d) without regard to
paragraphs (8) and (10) thereof and to any placed in service
date) owned by a public power provider, a governmental body,
or a cooperative electric company.
``(2) Public power provider.--The term `public power
provider' means a State utility with a service obligation, as
such terms are defined in section 217 of the Federal Power
Act (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph).
``(3) Governmental body.--The term `governmental body'
means any State or Indian tribal government, or any political
subdivision thereof.
``(4) Cooperative electric company.--The term `cooperative
electric company' means a mutual or cooperative electric
company described in section 501(c)(12) or section
1381(a)(2)(C).
``(5) Clean renewable energy bond lender.--The term `clean
renewable energy bond lender' means a lender which is a
cooperative which is owned by, or has outstanding loans to,
100 or more cooperative electric companies and is in
existence on February 1, 2002, and shall include any
affiliated entity which is controlled by such lender.
``(6) Qualified issuer.--The term `qualified issuer' means
a public power provider, a cooperative electric company, a
governmental body, a clean renewable energy bond lender, or a
not-for-profit electric utility which has received a loan or
loan guarantee under the Rural Electrification Act.''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Reporting of credit on qualified tax credit bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54A and such amounts shall be treated as paid on the
credit allowance date (as defined in section 54A(e)(1)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Sections 54(c)(2) and 1400N(l)(3)(B) are each amended
by striking ``subpart C'' and inserting ``subparts C and I''.
(2) Section 1397E(c)(2) is amended by striking ``subpart
H'' and inserting ``subparts H and I''.
(3) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and H'' and
inserting ``H, and I''.
(4) The heading of subpart H of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by striking ``Certain Bonds'' and
inserting ``Clean Renewable Energy Bonds''.
(5) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to subpart
H and inserting the following new items:
``subpart h. nonrefundable credit to holders of clean renewable energy
bonds.
``subpart i. qualified tax credit bonds.''.
(d) Application of Certain Labor Standards on Projects
Financed Under Tax Credit Bonds.--Subchapter IV of chapter 31
of title 40, United States Code, shall apply to projects
financed with the proceeds of any tax credit bond (as defined
in section 54A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
(e) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
PART II--CARBON MITIGATION PROVISIONS
SEC. 111. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF ADVANCED COAL PROJECT
INVESTMENT CREDIT.
(a) Modification of Credit Amount.--Section 48A(a) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) 30 percent of the qualified investment for such
taxable year in the case of projects described in clause
(iii) of subsection (d)(3)(B).''.
(b) Expansion of Aggregate Credits.--Section 48A(d)(3)(A)
is amended by striking ``$1,300,000,000'' and inserting
``$2,550,000,000''.
(c) Authorization of Additional Projects.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 48A(d)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Particular projects.--Of the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary is authorized to certify--
``(i) $800,000,000 for integrated gasification combined
cycle projects the application for which is submitted during
the period described in paragraph (2)(A)(i),
``(ii) $500,000,000 for projects which use other advanced
coal-based generation technologies the application for which
is submitted during the period described in paragraph
(2)(A)(i), and
``(iii) $1,250,000,000 for advanced coal-based generation
technology projects the application for which is submitted
during the period described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii).''.
(2) Application period for additional projects.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 48A(d)(2) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) Application period.--Each applicant for certification
under this paragraph shall submit an application meeting the
requirements of subparagraph (B). An applicant may only
submit an application--
``(i) for an allocation from the dollar amount specified in
clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (3)(B) during the 3-year
period beginning on the date the Secretary establishes the
program under paragraph (1), and
``(ii) for an allocation from the dollar amount specified
in paragraph (3)(B)(iii) during the 3-year period beginning
at the earlier of the termination of the period described in
clause (i) or the date prescribed by the Secretary.''.
(3) Capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions
requirement.--
(A) In general.--Section 48A(e)(1) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (F) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) in the case of any project the application for which
is submitted during the period described in subsection
(d)(2)(A)(ii), the project includes equipment which separates
and sequesters at least 65 percent (70 percent in the case of
an application for reallocated credits under subsection
(d)(4)) of such project's total carbon dioxide emissions.''.
(B) Highest priority for projects which sequester carbon
dioxide emissions.--Section 48A(e)(3) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (B)(iii) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) give highest priority to projects with the greatest
separation and sequestration percentage of total carbon
dioxide emissions.''.
(C) Recapture of credit for failure to sequester.--Section
48A is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Recapture of Credit for Failure To Sequester.--The
Secretary shall provide for recapturing the benefit of any
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any
project which fails to attain or maintain the separation and
sequestration requirements of subsection (e)(1)(G).''.
(4) Additional priority for research partnerships.--Section
48A(e)(3)(B), as amended by paragraph (3)(B), is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii),
(B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv), and
(C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) applicant participants who have a research
partnership with an eligible educational institution (as
defined in section 529(e)(5)), and''.
(5) Clerical amendment.--Section 48A(e)(3) is amended by
striking ``integrated gasification combined cycle'' in the
heading and inserting ``certain''.
[[Page 10247]]
(d) Competitive Certification Awards Modification
Authority.--Section 48A, as amended by subsection (c)(3), is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Competitive Certification Awards Modification
Authority.--In implementing this section or section 48B, the
Secretary is directed to modify the terms of any competitive
certification award and any associated closing agreement
where such modification--
``(1) is consistent with the objectives of such section,
``(2) is requested by the recipient of the competitive
certification award, and
``(3) involves moving the project site to improve the
potential to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions,
reduce costs of transporting feedstock, and serve a broader
customer base,
unless the Secretary determines that the dollar amount of tax
credits available to the taxpayer under such section would
increase as a result of the modification or such modification
would result in such project not being originally certified.
In considering any such modification, the Secretary shall
consult with other relevant Federal agencies, including the
Department of Energy.''.
(e) Disclosure of Allocations.--Section 48A(d) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Disclosure of allocations.--The Secretary shall, upon
making a certification under this subsection or section
48B(d), publicly disclose the identity of the applicant and
the amount of the credit certified with respect to such
applicant.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to credits the application for which is submitted during the
period described in section 48A(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and which are allocated or reallocated
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Competitive certification awards modification
authority.--The amendment made by subsection (d) shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and is
applicable to all competitive certification awards entered
into under section 48A or 48B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, whether such awards were issued before, on, or after
such date of enactment.
(3) Disclosure of allocations.--The amendment made by
subsection (e) shall apply to certifications made after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The amendment made by subsection
(c)(5) shall take effect as if included in the amendment made
by section 1307(b) of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005.
SEC. 112. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF COAL GASIFICATION
INVESTMENT CREDIT.
(a) Modification of Credit Amount.--Section 48B(a) is
amended by inserting ``(30 percent in the case of credits
allocated under subsection (d)(1)(B))'' after ``20 percent''.
(b) Expansion of Aggregate Credits.--Section 48B(d)(1) is
amended by striking ``shall not exceed $350,000,000'' and all
that follows and inserting ``shall not exceed--
``(A) $350,000,000, plus
``(B) $250,000,000 for qualifying gasification projects
that include equipment which separates and sequesters at
least 75 percent of such project's total carbon dioxide
emissions.''.
(c) Recapture of Credit for Failure To Sequester.--Section
48B is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Recapture of Credit for Failure To Sequester.--The
Secretary shall provide for recapturing the benefit of any
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any
project which fails to attain or maintain the separation and
sequestration requirements for such project under subsection
(d)(1).''.
(d) Selection Priorities.--Section 48B(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Selection priorities.--In determining which
qualifying gasification projects to certify under this
section, the Secretary shall--
``(A) give highest priority to projects with the greatest
separation and sequestration percentage of total carbon
dioxide emissions, and
``(B) give high priority to applicant participants who have
a research partnership with an eligible educational
institution (as defined in section 529(e)(5)).''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to credits described in section 48B(d)(1)(B) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are allocated or
reallocated after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 113. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN COAL EXCISE TAX.
Paragraph (2) of section 4121(e) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2014'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``December 31, 2018'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1 after 1981'' in subparagraph
(B) and inserting ``December 31 after 2007''.
SEC. 114. SPECIAL RULES FOR REFUND OF THE COAL EXCISE TAX TO
CERTAIN COAL PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS.
(a) Refund.--
(1) Coal producers.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)(1) and (c)
of section 6416 and section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, if--
(i) a coal producer establishes that such coal producer, or
a party related to such coal producer, exported coal produced
by such coal producer to a foreign country or shipped coal
produced by such coal producer to a possession of the United
States, or caused such coal to be exported or shipped, the
export or shipment of which was other than through an
exporter who meets the requirements of paragraph (2),
(ii) such coal producer filed an excise tax return on or
after October 1, 1990, and on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act, and
(iii) such coal producer files a claim for refund with the
Secretary not later than the close of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
then the Secretary shall pay to such coal producer an amount
equal to the tax paid under section 4121 of such Code on such
coal exported or shipped by the coal producer or a party
related to such coal producer, or caused by the coal producer
or a party related to such coal producer to be exported or
shipped.
(B) Special rules for certain taxpayers.--For purposes of
this section--
(i) In general.--If a coal producer or a party related to a
coal producer has received a judgment described in clause
(iii), such coal producer shall be deemed to have established
the export of coal to a foreign country or shipment of coal
to a possession of the United States under subparagraph
(A)(i).
(ii) Amount of payment.--If a taxpayer described in clause
(i) is entitled to a payment under subparagraph (A), the
amount of such payment shall be reduced by any amount paid
pursuant to the judgment described in clause (iii).
(iii) Judgment described.--A judgment is described in this
subparagraph if such judgment--
(I) is made by a court of competent jurisdiction within the
United States,
(II) relates to the constitutionality of any tax paid on
exported coal under section 4121 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, and
(III) is in favor of the coal producer or the party related
to the coal producer.
(2) Exporters.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)(1) and (c)
of section 6416 and section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, and a judgment described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) of
this subsection, if--
(A) an exporter establishes that such exporter exported
coal to a foreign country or shipped coal to a possession of
the United States, or caused such coal to be so exported or
shipped,
(B) such exporter filed a tax return on or after October 1,
1990, and on or before the date of the enactment of this Act,
and
(C) such exporter files a claim for refund with the
Secretary not later than the close of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
then the Secretary shall pay to such exporter an amount equal
to $0.825 per ton of such coal exported by the exporter or
caused to be exported or shipped, or caused to be exported or
shipped, by the exporter.
(b) Limitations.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to exported coal if a settlement with the Federal
Government has been made with and accepted by, the coal
producer, a party related to such coal producer, or the
exporter, of such coal, as of the date that the claim is
filed under this section with respect to such exported coal.
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``settlement with
the Federal Government'' shall not include any settlement or
stipulation entered into as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, the terms of which contemplate a judgment
concerning which any party has reserved the right to file an
appeal, or has filed an appeal.
(c) Subsequent Refund Prohibited.--No refund shall be made
under this section to the extent that a credit or refund of
such tax on such exported or shipped coal has been paid to
any person.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Coal producer.--The term ``coal producer'' means the
person in whom is vested ownership of the coal immediately
after the coal is severed from the ground, without regard to
the existence of any contractual arrangement for the sale or
other disposition of the coal or the payment of any royalties
between the producer and third parties. The term includes any
person who extracts coal from coal waste refuse piles or from
the silt waste product which results from the wet washing (or
similar processing) of coal.
(2) Exporter.--The term ``exporter'' means a person, other
than a coal producer, who does not have a contract, fee
arrangement, or any other agreement with a producer or seller
of such coal to export or ship such coal to a third party on
behalf of the producer or seller of such coal and--
(A) is indicated in the shipper's export declaration or
other documentation as the exporter of record, or
(B) actually exported such coal to a foreign country or
shipped such coal to a possession of the United States, or
caused such coal to be so exported or shipped.
(3) Related party.--The term ``a party related to such coal
producer'' means a person who--
(A) is related to such coal producer through any degree of
common management, stock ownership, or voting control,
(B) is related (within the meaning of section 144(a)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to such coal producer, or
(C) has a contract, fee arrangement, or any other agreement
with such coal producer to sell such coal to a third party on
behalf of such coal producer.
[[Page 10248]]
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Treasury or the Secretary's designee.
(e) Timing of Refund.--With respect to any claim for refund
filed pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall determine
whether the requirements of this section are met not later
than 180 days after such claim is filed. If the Secretary
determines that the requirements of this section are met, the
claim for refund shall be paid not later than 180 days after
the Secretary makes such determination.
(f) Interest.--Any refund paid pursuant to this section
shall be paid by the Secretary with interest from the date of
overpayment determined by using the overpayment rate and
method under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(g) Denial of Double Benefit.--The payment under subsection
(a) with respect to any coal shall not exceed--
(1) in the case of a payment to a coal producer, the amount
of tax paid under section 4121 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 with respect to such coal by such coal producer or a
party related to such coal producer, and
(2) in the case of a payment to an exporter, an amount
equal to $0.825 per ton with respect to such coal exported by
the exporter or caused to be exported by the exporter.
(h) Application of Section.--This section applies only to
claims on coal exported or shipped on or after October 1,
1990, through the date of the enactment of this Act.
(i) Standing Not Conferred.--
(1) Exporters.--With respect to exporters, this section
shall not confer standing upon an exporter to commence, or
intervene in, any judicial or administrative proceeding
concerning a claim for refund by a coal producer of any
Federal or State tax, fee, or royalty paid by the coal
producer.
(2) Coal producers.--With respect to coal producers, this
section shall not confer standing upon a coal producer to
commence, or intervene in, any judicial or administrative
proceeding concerning a claim for refund by an exporter of
any Federal or State tax, fee, or royalty paid by the
producer and alleged to have been passed on to an exporter.
SEC. 115. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into
an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to
undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions
that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse
gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall
submit to Congress a report containing the results of study
authorized under this section.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Subtitle B--Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions
SEC. 121. INCLUSION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL IN BONUS
DEPRECIATION FOR BIOMASS ETHANOL PLANT
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 168(l) is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) Cellulosic biofuel.--The term `cellulosic biofuel'
means any liquid fuel which is produced from any
lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter that is available on
a renewable or recurring basis.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (l) of section 168
is amended--
(1) by striking ``cellulosic biomass ethanol'' each place
it appears and inserting ``cellulosic biofuel'',
(2) by striking ``Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol'' in the
heading of such subsection and inserting ``Cellulosic
Biofuel'', and
(3) by striking ``cellulosic biomass ethanol'' in the
heading of paragraph (2) thereof and inserting ``cellulosic
biofuel''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 122. CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.
(a) In General.--Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and
6427(e)(5)(B) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Increase in Rate of Credit.--
(1) Income tax credit.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of
section 40A(b) are each amended by striking ``50 cents'' and
inserting ``$1.00''.
(2) Excise tax credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 6426(c) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this subsection,
the applicable amount is $1.00.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (b) of section 40A is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 40A(f) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Exception.--Subsection (b)(4) shall not apply with
respect to renewable diesel.''.
(C) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 40A(e) are each
amended by striking ``subsection (b)(5)(C)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(4)(C)''.
(D) Clause (ii) of section 40A(d)(3)(C) is amended by
striking ``subsection (b)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection
(b)(4)(B)''.
(c) Uniform Treatment of Diesel Produced From Biomass.--
Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f) is amended--
(1) by striking ``diesel fuel'' and inserting ``liquid
fuel'',
(2) by striking ``using a thermal depolymerization
process'', and
(3) by striking ``or D396'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``, D396, or other equivalent standard approved by
the Secretary''.
(d) Coproduction of Renewable Diesel With Petroleum
Feedstock.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f) (defining
renewable diesel) is amended by adding at the end the
following flush sentence:
``Such term does not include any fuel derived from
coprocessing biomass with a feedstock which is not biomass.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `biomass' has the
meaning given such term by section 45K(c)(3).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f)
is amended by striking ``(as defined in section 45K(c)(3))''.
(e) Eligibility of Certain Aviation Fuel.--Paragraph (3) of
section 40A(f) (defining renewable diesel) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``The term `renewable
diesel' also means fuel derived from biomass which meets the
requirements of a Department of Defense specification for
military jet fuel or an American Society of Testing and
Materials specification for aviation turbine fuel.''
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to fuel produced, and sold or used, after December 31, 2008.
(2) Coproduction of renewable diesel with petroleum
feedstock.--The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply
to fuel produced, and sold or used, after February 13, 2008.
SEC. 123. CLARIFICATION THAT CREDITS FOR FUEL ARE DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR UNITED STATES
PRODUCTION.
(a) Alcohol Fuels Credit.--Subsection (d) of section 40 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Limitation to alcohol with connection to the united
states.--No credit shall be determined under this section
with respect to any alcohol which is produced outside the
United States for use as a fuel outside the United States.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(b) Biodiesel Fuels Credit.--Subsection (d) of section 40A
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Limitation to biodiesel with connection to the united
states.--No credit shall be determined under this section
with respect to any biodiesel which is produced outside the
United States for use as a fuel outside the United States.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(c) Excise Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 6426 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation to Fuels With Connection to the United
States.--
``(1) Alcohol.--No credit shall be determined under this
section with respect to any alcohol which is produced outside
the United States for use as a fuel outside the United
States.
``(2) Biodiesel and alternative fuels.--No credit shall be
determined under this section with respect to any biodiesel
or alternative fuel which is produced outside the United
States for use as a fuel outside the United States.
For purposes of this subsection, the term `United States'
includes any possession of the United States.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 6427
is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6)
and by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Limitation to fuels with connection to the united
states.--No amount shall be payable under paragraph (1) or
(2) with respect to any mixture or alternative fuel if credit
is not allowed with respect to such mixture or alternative
fuel by reason of section 6426(i).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to claims for credit or payment made on or after
May 15, 2008.
SEC. 124. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE
MOTOR VEHICLES.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 30D. NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR
VEHICLES.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the credit amounts
determined under subsection (b) with respect to each new
qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle placed in
service by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Per Vehicle Dollar Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined under this
subsection with respect to any new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle is the sum of the amounts determined
under paragraphs (2) and (3) with respect to such vehicle.
``(2) Base amount.--The amount determined under this
paragraph is $3,000.
``(3) Battery capacity.--In the case of a vehicle which
draws propulsion energy from a battery with not less than 5
kilowatt hours of capacity, the amount determined under this
paragraph is $200, plus $200 for each kilowatt hour of
capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours. The amount determined
under this paragraph shall not exceed $2,000.
``(c) Application With Other Credits.--
``(1) Business credit treated as part of general business
credit.--So much of the
[[Page 10249]]
credit which would be allowed under subsection (a) for any
taxable year (determined without regard to this subsection)
that is attributable to property of a character subject to an
allowance for depreciation shall be treated as a credit
listed in section 38(b) for such taxable year (and not
allowed under subsection (a)).
``(2) Personal credit.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this title, the credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined
after application of paragraph (1)) shall be treated as a
credit allowable under subpart A for such taxable year.
``(B) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a
taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(i) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(ii) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
(other than this section and sections 23 and 25D) and section
27 for the taxable year.
``(d) New Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30(c)(2))--
``(A) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(B) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer
and not for resale,
``(C) which is made by a manufacturer,
``(D) which has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than
14,000 pounds,
``(E) which has received a certificate of conformity under
the Clean Air Act and meets or exceeds the Bin 5 Tier II
emission standard established in regulations prescribed by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act for that make and
model year vehicle, and
``(F) which is propelled to a significant extent by an
electric motor which draws electricity from a battery which--
``(i) has a capacity of not less than 4 kilowatt hours, and
``(ii) is capable of being recharged from an external
source of electricity.
``(2) Exception.--The term `new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle' shall not include any vehicle which is
not a passenger automobile or light truck if such vehicle has
a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 8,500 pounds.
``(3) Other terms.--The terms `passenger automobile',
`light truck', and `manufacturer' have the meanings given
such terms in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of the
administration of title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521 et seq.).
``(4) Battery capacity.--The term `capacity' means, with
respect to any battery, the quantity of electricity which the
battery is capable of storing, expressed in kilowatt hours,
as measured from a 100 percent state of charge to a 0 percent
state of charge.
``(e) Limitation on Number of New Qualified Plug-In
Electric Drive Motor Vehicles Eligible for Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a new qualified plug-in
electric drive motor vehicle sold during the phaseout period,
only the applicable percentage of the credit otherwise
allowable under subsection (a) shall be allowed.
``(2) Phaseout period.--For purposes of this subsection,
the phaseout period is the period beginning with the second
calendar quarter following the calendar quarter which
includes the first date on which the number of new qualified
plug-in electric drive motor vehicles manufactured by the
manufacturer of the vehicle referred to in paragraph (1) sold
for use in the United States after the date of the enactment
of this section, is at least 60,000.
``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage is--
``(A) 50 percent for the first 2 calendar quarters of the
phaseout period,
``(B) 25 percent for the 3d and 4th calendar quarters of
the phaseout period, and
``(C) 0 percent for each calendar quarter thereafter.
``(4) Controlled groups.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 30B(f)(4) shall apply for purposes of this
subsection.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any property for which
a credit is allowable under subsection (a) shall be reduced
by the amount of such credit (determined without regard to
subsection (c)).
``(2) Recapture.--The Secretary shall, by regulations,
provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable
under subsection (a) with respect to any property which
ceases to be property eligible for such credit.
``(3) Property used outside united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1)
or with respect to the portion of the cost of any property
taken into account under section 179.
``(4) Election not to take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any vehicle if the taxpayer
elects to not have this section apply to such vehicle.
``(5) Property used by tax-exempt entity; interaction with
air quality and motor vehicle safety standards.--Rules
similar to the rules of paragraphs (6) and (10) of section
30B(h) shall apply for purposes of this section.''.
(b) Coordination With Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit.--
Section 30B(d)(3) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Exclusion of plug-in vehicles.--Any vehicle with
respect to which a credit is allowable under section 30D
(determined without regard to subsection (c) thereof) shall
not be taken into account under this section.''.
(c) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--Section
38(b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' each place it appears at the end of
any paragraph,
(2) by striking ``plus'' each place it appears at the end
of any paragraph,
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (31) and
inserting ``, plus'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(32) the portion of the new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle credit to which section 30D(c)(1)
applies.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1)(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B), as amended by section 104, is
amended by striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and
30D''.
(B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) is amended by inserting
``30D,'' after ``25D,''.
(C) Section 25B(g)(2), as amended by section 104, is
amended by striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``, 25D, and
30D''.
(D) Section 26(a)(1), as amended by section 104, is amended
by striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(E) Section 1400C(d)(2) is amended by striking ``and 25D''
and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(2) Section 1016(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (35), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (36) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(37) to the extent provided in section 30D(f)(1).''.
(3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting ``30D(f)(4),''
after ``30C(e)(5),''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 30D. New qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.''.
(e) Treatment of Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit as a
Personal Credit.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 30B(g) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) for any taxable year (after application of paragraph (1))
shall be treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for
such taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 30C(d)(2) is amended by
striking ``sections 27, 30, and 30B'' and inserting
``sections 27 and 30''.
(B) Paragraph (3) of section 55(c) is amended by striking
``30B(g)(2),''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
(2) Treatment of alternative motor vehicle credit as
personal credit.--The amendments made by subsection (e) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(g) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--The amendment made by
subsection (d)(1)(A) shall be subject to title IX of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 in
the same manner as the provision of such Act to which such
amendment relates.
SEC. 125. EXCLUSION FROM HEAVY TRUCK TAX FOR IDLING REDUCTION
UNITS AND ADVANCED INSULATION.
(a) In General.--Section 4053 is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraphs:
``(9) Idling reduction device.--Any device or system of
devices which--
``(A) is designed to provide to a vehicle those services
(such as heat, air conditioning, or electricity) that would
otherwise require the operation of the main drive engine
while the vehicle is temporarily parked or remains stationary
using one or more devices affixed to a tractor, and
``(B) is certified by the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Transportation, to
reduce idling of such vehicle at a motor vehicle rest stop or
other location where such vehicles are temporarily parked or
remain stationary.
``(10) Advanced insulation.--Any insulation that has an R
value of not less than R35 per inch.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to sales or installations after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 126. RESTRUCTURING OF NEW YORK LIBERTY ZONE TAX CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter Y of chapter 1 is
amended by redesignating section 1400L as section 1400K and
by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 1400L. NEW YORK LIBERTY ZONE TAX CREDITS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of a New York Liberty Zone
governmental unit, there shall be allowed as a credit against
any taxes imposed for any payroll period by section 3402 for
which such governmental unit is liable under section 3403 an
amount equal to so much of the portion of the qualifying
project expenditure amount allocated under subsection (b)(3)
to such governmental unit for the calendar year as is
allocated by such governmental unit to such period under
subsection (b)(4).
[[Page 10250]]
``(b) Qualifying Project Expenditure Amount.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying project expenditure
amount' means, with respect to any calendar year, the sum
of--
``(A) the total expenditures paid or incurred during such
calendar year by all New York Liberty Zone governmental units
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for any
portion of qualifying projects located wholly within the City
of New York, New York, and
``(B) any such expenditures--
``(i) paid or incurred in any preceding calendar year which
begins after the date of enactment of this section, and
``(ii) not previously allocated under paragraph (3).
``(2) Qualifying project.--The term `qualifying project'
means any transportation infrastructure project, including
highways, mass transit systems, railroads, airports, ports,
and waterways, in or connecting with the New York Liberty
Zone (as defined in section 1400K(h)), which is designated as
a qualifying project under this section jointly by the
Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City
of New York, New York.
``(3) General allocation.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor of the State of New York
and the Mayor of the City of New York, New York, shall
jointly allocate to each New York Liberty Zone governmental
unit the portion of the qualifying project expenditure amount
which may be taken into account by such governmental unit
under subsection (a) for any calendar year in the credit
period.
``(B) Aggregate limit.--The aggregate amount which may be
allocated under subparagraph (A) for all calendar years in
the credit period shall not exceed $2,000,000,000.
``(C) Annual limit.--The aggregate amount which may be
allocated under subparagraph (A) for any calendar year in the
credit period shall not exceed the sum of--
``(i) $115,000,000 ($425,000,000 in the case of the last 2
years in the credit period), plus
``(ii) the aggregate amount authorized to be allocated
under this paragraph for all preceding calendar years in the
credit period which was not so allocated.
``(D) Unallocated amounts at end of credit period.--If, as
of the close of the credit period, the amount under
subparagraph (B) exceeds the aggregate amount allocated under
subparagraph (A) for all calendar years in the credit period,
the Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the
City of New York, New York, may jointly allocate to New York
Liberty Zone governmental units for any calendar year in the
5-year period following the credit period an amount equal
to--
``(i) the lesser of--
``(I) such excess, or
``(II) the qualifying project expenditure amount for such
calendar year, reduced by
``(ii) the aggregate amount allocated under this
subparagraph for all preceding calendar years.
``(4) Allocation to payroll periods.--Each New York Liberty
Zone governmental unit which has been allocated a portion of
the qualifying project expenditure amount under paragraph (3)
for a calendar year may allocate such portion to payroll
periods beginning in such calendar year as such governmental
unit determines appropriate.
``(c) Carryover of Unused Allocations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the amount allocated under subsection (b)(3) to a New York
Liberty Zone governmental unit for any calendar year exceeds
the aggregate taxes imposed by section 3402 for which such
governmental unit is liable under section 3403 for periods
beginning in such year, such excess shall be carried to the
succeeding calendar year and added to the allocation of such
governmental unit for such succeeding calendar year.
``(2) Reallocation.--If a New York Liberty Zone
governmental unit does not use an amount allocated to it
under subsection (b)(3) within the time prescribed by the
Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City
of New York, New York, then such amount shall after such time
be treated for purposes of subsection (b)(3) in the same
manner as if it had never been allocated.
``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Credit period.--The term `credit period' means the
12-year period beginning on January 1, 2009.
``(2) New york liberty zone governmental unit.--The term
`New York Liberty Zone governmental unit' means--
``(A) the State of New York,
``(B) the City of New York, New York, and
``(C) any agency or instrumentality of such State or City.
``(3) Treatment of funds.--Any expenditure for a qualifying
project taken into account for purposes of the credit under
this section shall be considered State and local funds for
the purpose of any Federal program.
``(4) Treatment of credit amounts for purposes of
withholding taxes.--For purposes of this title, a New York
Liberty Zone governmental unit shall be treated as having
paid to the Secretary, on the day on which wages are paid to
employees, an amount equal to the amount of the credit
allowed to such entity under subsection (a) with respect to
such wages, but only if such governmental unit deducts and
withholds wages for such payroll period under section 3401
(relating to wage withholding).
``(e) Reporting.--The Governor of the State of New York and
the Mayor of the City of New York, New York, shall jointly
submit to the Secretary an annual report--
``(1) which certifies--
``(A) the qualifying project expenditure amount for the
calendar year, and
``(B) the amount allocated to each New York Liberty Zone
governmental unit under subsection (b)(3) for the calendar
year, and
``(2) includes such other information as the Secretary may
require to carry out this section.
``(f) Guidance.--The Secretary may prescribe such guidance
as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with
the purposes of this section.''.
(b) Termination of Special Allowance and Expensing.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 1400K(b)(2), as redesignated by
subsection (a), is amended by striking the parenthetical
therein and inserting ``(in the case of nonresidential real
property and residential rental property, the date of the
enactment of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of
2008 or, if acquired pursuant to a binding contract in effect
on such enactment date, December 31, 2009)''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(c)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``section
1400L(a)'' and inserting ``section 1400K(a)''.
(2) Section 168(k)(2)(D)(ii) is amended by striking
``section 1400L(c)(2)'' and inserting ``section
1400K(c)(2)''.
(3) The table of sections for part I of subchapter Y of
chapter 1 is amended by redesignating the item relating to
section 1400L as an item relating to section 1400K and by
inserting after such item the following new item:
``Sec. 1400L. New York Liberty Zone tax credits.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 127. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.''.
(b) Limitation on Exclusion.--Paragraph (2) of section
132(f) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the applicable annual limitation in the case of any
qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.''.
(c) Definitions.--Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Definitions related to bicycle commuting
reimbursement.--
``(i) Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.--The term
`qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement' means, with
respect to any calendar year, any employer reimbursement
during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of
such calendar year for reasonable expenses incurred by the
employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a
bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if
such bicycle is regularly used for travel between the
employee's residence and place of employment.
``(ii) Applicable annual limitation.--The term `applicable
annual limitation' means, with respect to any employee for
any calendar year, the product of $20 multiplied by the
number of qualified bicycle commuting months during such
year.
``(iii) Qualified bicycle commuting month.--The term
`qualified bicycle commuting month' means, with respect to
any employee, any month during which such employee--
``(I) regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion
of the travel between the employee's residence and place of
employment, and
``(II) does not receive any benefit described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1).''.
(d) Constructive Receipt of Benefit.--Paragraph (4) of
section 132(f) is amended by inserting ``(other than a
qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement)'' after
``qualified transportation fringe''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.
SEC. 128. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY CREDIT.
(a) Increase in Credit Amount.--Section 30C is amended--
(1) by striking ``30 percent'' in subsection (a) and
inserting ``50 percent'', and
(2) by striking ``$30,000'' in subsection (b)(1) and
inserting ``$50,000''.
(b) Extension of Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 30C(g)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
Subtitle C--Energy Conservation and Efficiency Provisions
SEC. 141. QUALIFIED ENERGY CONSERVATION BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subpart I of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1, as added by section 106, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 54C. QUALIFIED ENERGY CONSERVATION BONDS.
``(a) Qualified Energy Conservation Bond.--For purposes of
this subchapter, the
[[Page 10251]]
term `qualified energy conservation bond' means any bond
issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of such
issue are to be used for one or more qualified conservation
purposes,
``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government,
and
``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section.
``(b) Reduced Credit Amount.--The annual credit determined
under section 54A(b) with respect to any qualified energy
conservation bond shall be 70 percent of the amount so
determined without regard to this subsection.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds which may be
designated under subsection (a) by any issuer shall not
exceed the limitation amount allocated to such issuer under
subsection (e).
``(d) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
There is a national qualified energy conservation bond
limitation of $3,000,000,000.
``(e) Allocations.--
``(1) In general.--The limitation applicable under
subsection (d) shall be allocated by the Secretary among the
States in proportion to the population of the States.
``(2) Allocations to largest local governments.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any State in which there
is a large local government, each such local government shall
be allocated a portion of such State's allocation which bears
the same ratio to the State's allocation (determined without
regard to this subparagraph) as the population of such large
local government bears to the population of such State.
``(B) Allocation of unused limitation to state.--The amount
allocated under this subsection to a large local government
may be reallocated by such local government to the State in
which such local government is located.
``(C) Large local government.--For purposes of this
section, the term `large local government' means any
municipality or county if such municipality or county has a
population of 100,000 or more.
``(3) Allocation to issuers; restriction on private
activity bonds.--Any allocation under this subsection to a
State or large local government shall be allocated by such
State or large local government to issuers within the State
in a manner that results in not less than 70 percent of the
allocation to such State or large local government being used
to designate bonds which are not private activity bonds.
``(f) Qualified Conservation Purpose.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified conservation
purpose' means any of the following:
``(A) Capital expenditures incurred for purposes of--
``(i) reducing energy consumption in publicly-owned
buildings by at least 20 percent,
``(ii) implementing green community programs,
``(iii) rural development involving the production of
electricity from renewable energy resources, or
``(iv) any qualified facility (as determined under section
45(d) without regard to paragraphs (8) and (10) thereof and
without regard to any placed in service date).
``(B) Expenditures with respect to research facilities, and
research grants, to support research in--
``(i) development of cellulosic ethanol or other nonfossil
fuels,
``(ii) technologies for the capture and sequestration of
carbon dioxide produced through the use of fossil fuels,
``(iii) increasing the efficiency of existing technologies
for producing nonfossil fuels,
``(iv) automobile battery technologies and other
technologies to reduce fossil fuel consumption in
transportation, or
``(v) technologies to reduce energy use in buildings.
``(C) Mass commuting facilities and related facilities that
reduce the consumption of energy, including expenditures to
reduce pollution from vehicles used for mass commuting.
``(D) Demonstration projects designed to promote the
commercialization of--
``(i) green building technology,
``(ii) conversion of agricultural waste for use in the
production of fuel or otherwise,
``(iii) advanced battery manufacturing technologies,
``(iv) technologies to reduce peak use of electricity, or
``(v) technologies for the capture and sequestration of
carbon dioxide emitted from combusting fossil fuels in order
to produce electricity.
``(E) Public education campaigns to promote energy
efficiency.
``(2) Special rules for private activity bonds.--For
purposes of this section, in the case of any private activity
bond, the term `qualified conservation purposes' shall not
include any expenditure which is not a capital expenditure.
``(g) Population.--
``(1) In general.--The population of any State or local
government shall be determined for purposes of this section
as provided in section 146(j) for the calendar year which
includes the date of the enactment of this section.
``(2) Special rule for counties.--In determining the
population of any county for purposes of this section, any
population of such county which is taken into account in
determining the population of any municipality which is a
large local government shall not be taken into account in
determining the population of such county.
``(h) Application to Indian Tribal Governments.--An Indian
tribal government shall be treated for purposes of this
section in the same manner as a large local government,
except that--
``(1) an Indian tribal government shall be treated for
purposes of subsection (e) as located within a State to the
extent of so much of the population of such government as
resides within such State, and
``(2) any bond issued by an Indian tribal government shall
be treated as a qualified energy conservation bond only if
issued as part of an issue the available project proceeds of
which are used for purposes for which such Indian tribal
government could issue bonds to which section 103(a)
applies.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 54A(d), as added by section
106, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Qualified tax credit bond.--The term `qualified tax
credit bond' means--
``(A) a new clean renewable energy bond, or
``(B) a qualified energy conservation bond,
which is part of an issue that meets requirements of
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).''.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 54A(d)(2), as added by
section 106, is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Qualified purpose.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `qualified purpose' means--
``(i) in the case of a new clean renewable energy bond, a
purpose specified in section 54B(a)(1), and
``(ii) in the case of a qualified energy conservation bond,
a purpose specified in section 54C(a)(1).''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart I of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 54C. Qualified energy conservation bonds.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 142. CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Section 25C(g) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31,
2008''.
(b) Qualified Biomass Fuel Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25C(d)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D),
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) a stove which uses the burning of biomass fuel to
heat a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as
a residence by the taxpayer, or to heat water for use in such
a dwelling unit, and which has a thermal efficiency rating of
at least 75 percent.''.
(2) Biomass fuel.--Section 25C(d) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Biomass fuel.--The term `biomass fuel' means any
plant-derived fuel available on a renewable or recurring
basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood
waste and residues (including wood pellets), plants
(including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, and fibers.''.
(c) Coordination With Credit for Qualified Geothermal Heat
Pump Property Expenditures.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 25C(d), as
amended by subsection (b), is amended by striking
subparagraph (C) and by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E),
and (F) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section
25C(d)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Requirements and standards for air conditioners and
heat pumps.--The standards and requirements prescribed by the
Secretary under subparagraph (B) with respect to the energy
efficiency ratio (EER) for central air conditioners and
electric heat pumps--
``(i) shall require measurements to be based on published
data which is tested by manufacturers at 95 degrees
Fahrenheit, and
``(ii) may be based on the certified data of the Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute that are prepared in
partnership with the Consortium for Energy Efficiency.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall
apply to expenditures made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 143. ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION.
Subsection (h) of section 179D is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
SEC. 144. MODIFICATIONS OF ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE CREDIT
FOR APPLIANCES PRODUCED AFTER 2007.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 45M is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Applicable Amount.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(1) Dishwashers.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $45 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2008 or 2009 and which uses no more than 324
kilowatt hours per year and 5.8 gallons per cycle, and
``(B) $75 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010 and which uses no more
than 307 kilowatt hours per year and 5.0 gallons per cycle
(5.5 gallons per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater
than 12 place settings).
[[Page 10252]]
``(2) Clothes washers.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $75 in the case of a residential top-loading clothes
washer manufactured in calendar year 2008 which meets or
exceeds a 1.72 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
8.0 water consumption factor,
``(B) $125 in the case of a residential top-loading clothes
washer manufactured in calendar year 2008 or 2009 which meets
or exceeds a 1.8 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
7.5 water consumption factor,
``(C) $150 in the case of a residential or commercial
clothes washer manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or
2010 which meets or exceeds 2.0 modified energy factor and
does not exceed a 6.0 water consumption factor, and
``(D) $250 in the case of a residential or commercial
clothes washer manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or
2010 which meets or exceeds 2.2 modified energy factor and
does not exceed a 4.5 water consumption factor.
``(3) Refrigerators.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $50 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008, and consumes at least 20
percent but not more than 22.9 percent less kilowatt hours
per year than the 2001 energy conservation standards,
``(B) $75 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008 or 2009, and consumes at
least 23 percent but no more than 24.9 percent less kilowatt
hours per year than the 2001 energy conservation standards,
``(C) $100 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010, and
consumes at least 25 percent but not more than 29.9 percent
less kilowatt hours per year than the 2001 energy
conservation standards, and
``(D) $200 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in
calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010 and which consumes at least
30 percent less energy than the 2001 energy conservation
standards.''.
(b) Eligible Production.--
(1) Similar treatment for all appliances.--Subsection (c)
of section 45M is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2),
(B) by striking ``(1) In general'' and all that follows
through ``the eligible'' and inserting ``The eligible'',
(C) by moving the text of such subsection in line with the
subsection heading, and
(D) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, and by moving such
paragraphs 2 ems to the left.
(2) Modification of base period.--Paragraph (2) of section
45M(c), as amended by paragraph (1), is amended by striking
``3-calendar year'' and inserting ``2-calendar year''.
(c) Types of Energy Efficient Appliances.--Subsection (d)
of section 45M (defining types of energy efficient
appliances) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Types of Energy Efficient Appliance.--For purposes of
this section, the types of energy efficient appliances are--
``(1) dishwashers described in subsection (b)(1),
``(2) clothes washers described in subsection (b)(2), and
``(3) refrigerators described in subsection (b)(3).''.
(d) Aggregate Credit Amount Allowed.--
(1) Increase in limit.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(e) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) Aggregate credit amount allowed.--The aggregate
amount of credit allowed under subsection (a) with respect to
a taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $75,000,000
reduced by the amount of the credit allowed under subsection
(a) to the taxpayer (or any predecessor) for all prior
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.''.
(2) Exception for certain refrigerator and clothes
washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(e) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Amount allowed for certain refrigerators and clothes
washers.--Refrigerators described in subsection (b)(3)(D) and
clothes washers described in subsection (b)(2)(D) shall not
be taken into account under paragraph (1).''.
(e) Qualified Energy Efficient Appliances.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(f) (defining
qualified energy efficient appliance) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Qualified energy efficient appliance.--The term
`qualified energy efficient appliance' means--
``(A) any dishwasher described in subsection (b)(1),
``(B) any clothes washer described in subsection (b)(2),
and
``(C) any refrigerator described in subsection (b)(3).''.
(2) Clothes washer.--Section 45M(f)(3) is amended by
inserting ``commercial'' before ``residential'' the second
place it appears.
(3) Top-loading clothes washer.--Subsection (f) of section
45M is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and
(7) as paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively, and
by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) Top-loading clothes washer.--The term `top-loading
clothes washer' means a clothes washer which has the clothes
container compartment access located on the top of the
machine and which operates on a vertical axis.''.
(4) Replacement of energy factor.--Section 45M(f)(6), as
redesignated by paragraph (3), is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Modified energy factor.--The term `modified energy
factor' means the modified energy factor established by the
Department of Energy for compliance with the Federal energy
conservation standard.''.
(5) Gallons per cycle; water consumption factor.--Section
45M(f), as amended by paragraph (3), is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(9) Gallons per cycle.--The term `gallons per cycle'
means, with respect to a dishwasher, the amount of water,
expressed in gallons, required to complete a normal cycle of
a dishwasher.
``(10) Water consumption factor.--The term `water
consumption factor' means, with respect to a clothes washer,
the quotient of the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption divided by the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of
the clothes washer.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 145. ACCELERATED RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF
SMART METERS AND SMART GRID SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Section 168(e)(3)(D) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the
period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting a comma, and
by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clauses:
``(iii) any qualified smart electric meter, and
``(iv) any qualified smart electric grid system.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 168(i) is amended by inserting at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(18) Qualified smart electric meters.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified smart electric
meter' means any smart electric meter which is placed in
service by a taxpayer who is a supplier of electric energy or
a provider of electric energy services.
``(B) Smart electric meter.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `smart electric meter' means any time-based
meter and related communication equipment which is capable of
being used by the taxpayer as part of a system that--
``(i) measures and records electricity usage data on a
time-differentiated basis in at least 24 separate time
segments per day,
``(ii) provides for the exchange of information between
supplier or provider and the customer's electric meter in
support of time-based rates or other forms of demand
response,
``(iii) provides data to such supplier or provider so that
the supplier or provider can provide energy usage information
to customers electronically, and
``(iv) provides net metering.
``(19) Qualified smart electric grid systems.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified smart electric grid
system' means any smart grid property used as part of a
system for electric distribution grid communications,
monitoring, and management placed in service by a taxpayer
who is a supplier of electric energy or a provider of
electric energy services.
``(B) Smart grid property.--For the purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `smart grid property' means
electronics and related equipment that is capable of--
``(i) sensing, collecting, and monitoring data of or from
all portions of a utility's electric distribution grid,
``(ii) providing real-time, two-way communications to
monitor or manage such grid, and
``(iii) providing real time analysis of and event
prediction based upon collected data that can be used to
improve electric distribution system reliability, quality,
and performance.''.
(c) Continued Application of 150 Percent Declining Balance
Method.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(b) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) any property (other than property described in
paragraph (3)) which is a qualified smart electric meter or
qualified smart electric grid system, or''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 146. QUALIFIED GREEN BUILDING AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 142(l) is amended
by striking ``September 30, 2009'' and inserting ``September
30, 2012''.
(b) Treatment of Current Refunding Bonds.--Paragraph (9) of
section 142(l) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
(c) Accountability.--The second sentence of section 701(d)
of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is amended by
striking ``issuance,'' and inserting ``issuance of the last
issue with respect to such project,''.
TITLE II--ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Extensions Primarily Affecting Individuals
SEC. 201. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 202. DEDUCTION OF QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED
EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
[[Page 10253]]
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 203. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS OF REGULATED
INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) Interest-Related Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(1) (defining interest-related dividend) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Short-Term Capital Gain Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(2) (defining short-term capital gain dividend)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to dividends with respect to taxable years of
regulated investment companies beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 204. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 205. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) is
amended by striking ``or 2007'' and inserting ``2007, or
2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 206. ELECTION TO INCLUDE COMBAT PAY AS EARNED INCOME FOR
PURPOSES OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subclause (II) of section 32(c)(2)(B)(vi)
(defining earned income) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 6428(e)
is amended by striking ``except that'' and all that follows
through ``such term'' and inserting ``except that such
term''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 207. MODIFICATION OF MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR
VETERANS.
(a) Qualified Mortgage Bonds Used To Finance Residences for
Veterans Without Regard to First-Time Homebuyer
Requirement.--Subparagraph (D) of section 143(d)(2) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 208. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS TO INDIVIDUALS
CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 72(t)(2)(G) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to individuals ordered or called to active duty
on or after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 209. STOCK IN RIC FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ESTATES OF
NONRESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to decedents dying after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 210. QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2008, except that such
amendment shall not apply to the application of withholding
requirements with respect to any payment made on or before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 211. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED GROUP
LEGAL SERVICES PLANS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 120 is amended
by striking ``shall not apply to taxable years beginning
after June 30, 1992'' and inserting ``shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2007, and before January
1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
Subtitle B--Extensions Primarily Affecting Businesses
SEC. 221. RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 41(h)(1) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Computation of Credit for Taxable Year in Which Credit
Terminates.--Paragraph (2) of section 41(h) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Computation of credit for taxable year in which
credit terminates.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year with
respect to which this section applies to a number of days
which is less than the total number of days in such taxable
year, the applicable base amount with respect to such taxable
year shall be the amount which bears the same ratio to such
applicable amount (determined without regard to this
paragraph) as the number of days in such taxable year to
which this section applies bears to the total number of days
in such taxable year.
``(B) Applicable base amount.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `applicable base amount' means, with respect to
any taxable year--
``(i) except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph,
the base amount for the taxable year,
``(ii) in the case of a taxable year with respect to which
an election under subsection (c)(4) (relating to election of
alternative incremental credit) is in effect, the average
described in subsection (c)(1)(B) for the taxable year, and
``(iii) in the case of a taxable year with respect to which
an election under subsection (c)(5) (relating to election of
alternative simplified credit) is in effect, the average
qualified research expenses for the 3 taxable years preceding
the taxable year.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
45C(b)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 222. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 223. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
Subparagraph (D) of section 45D(f)(1) is amended by
striking ``and 2008'' and inserting ``2008, and 2009''.
SEC. 224. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1,
2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred during taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 225. FIFTEEN-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY FOR
QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AND QUALIFIED
RESTAURANT PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Clauses (iv) and (v) of section
168(e)(3)(E) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2008''
and inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 226. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS
RACING TRACK FACILITY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 227. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON
INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 228. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December
31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 229. DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 199(d)(8) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``first 2 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 3 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 230. MODIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS
TO CONTROLLING EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 512(b)(13)(E) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments received or accrued after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 231. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subpart I of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1, as amended by sections 106 and 141, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 54D. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
``(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.--For purposes of this
subchapter, the term `qualified zone academy bond' means any
bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of such
issue are to be used for a qualified purpose with respect to
a qualified zone academy established by an eligible local
education agency,
``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such academy is located, and
``(3) the issuer--
``(A) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
[[Page 10254]]
``(B) certifies that it has written assurances that the
private business contribution requirement of subsection (b)
will be met with respect to such academy, and
``(C) certifies that it has the written approval of the
eligible local education agency for such bond issuance.
``(b) Private Business Contribution Requirement.--For
purposes of subsection (a), the private business contribution
requirement of this subsection is met with respect to any
issue if the eligible local education agency that established
the qualified zone academy has written commitments from
private entities to make qualified contributions having a
present value (as of the date of issuance of the issue) of
not less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the issue.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) National limitation.--There is a national zone
academy bond limitation for each calendar year. Such
limitation is $400,000,000 for 2008, and, except as provided
in paragraph (4), zero thereafter.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--The national zone academy
bond limitation for a calendar year shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the States on the basis of their respective
populations of individuals below the poverty line (as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget). The limitation
amount allocated to a State under the preceding sentence
shall be allocated by the State education agency to qualified
zone academies within such State.
``(3) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a)
with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed
the limitation amount allocated to such academy under
paragraph (2) for such calendar year.
``(4) Carryover of unused limitation.--
``(A) In general.--If for any calendar year--
``(i) the limitation amount for any State, exceeds
``(ii) the amount of bonds issued during such year which
are designated under subsection (a) with respect to qualified
zone academies within such State,
the limitation amount for such State for the following
calendar year shall be increased by the amount of such
excess.
``(B) Limitation on carryover.--Any carryforward of a
limitation amount may be carried only to the first 2 years
following the unused limitation year. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, a limitation amount shall be treated as
used on a first-in first-out basis.
``(C) Coordination with section 1397e.--Any carryover
determined under section 1397E(e)(4) (relating to carryover
of unused limitation) with respect to any State to calendar
year 2008 shall be treated for purposes of this section as a
carryover with respect to such State for such calendar year
under subparagraph (A), and the limitation of subparagraph
(B) shall apply to such carryover taking into account the
calendar years to which such carryover relates.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified zone academy.--The term `qualified zone
academy' means any public school (or academic program within
a public school) which is established by and operated under
the supervision of an eligible local education agency to
provide education or training below the postsecondary level
if--
``(A) such public school or program (as the case may be) is
designed in cooperation with business to enhance the academic
curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates, and
better prepare students for the rigors of college and the
increasingly complex workforce,
``(B) students in such public school or program (as the
case may be) will be subject to the same academic standards
and assessments as other students educated by the eligible
local education agency,
``(C) the comprehensive education plan of such public
school or program is approved by the eligible local education
agency, and
``(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment
zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or
community designated after the date of the enactment of this
section), or
``(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (as of the date of
issuance of the bonds) that at least 35 percent of the
students attending such school or participating in such
program (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or
reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program
established under the National School Lunch Act.
``(2) Eligible local education agency.--For purposes of
this section, the term `eligible local education agency'
means any local educational agency as defined in section 9101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(3) Qualified purpose.--The term `qualified purpose'
means, with respect to any qualified zone academy--
``(A) rehabilitating or repairing the public school
facility in which the academy is established,
``(B) providing equipment for use at such academy,
``(C) developing course materials for education to be
provided at such academy, and
``(D) training teachers and other school personnel in such
academy.
``(4) Qualified contributions.--The term `qualified
contribution' means any contribution (of a type and quality
acceptable to the eligible local education agency) of--
``(A) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy
(including state-of-the-art technology and vocational
equipment),
``(B) technical assistance in developing curriculum or in
training teachers in order to promote appropriate market
driven technology in the classroom,
``(C) services of employees as volunteer mentors,
``(D) internships, field trips, or other educational
opportunities outside the academy for students, or
``(E) any other property or service specified by the
eligible local education agency.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 54A(d), as amended by sections
106 and 141, is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (B), and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) a qualified zone academy bond,''.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 54A(d)(2), as amended by
sections 106 and 141, is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of clause (i), by striking the period at the end of
clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``(iii) in the case of a qualified zone academy bond, a
purpose specified in section 54D(a)(1).''.
(3) Section 1397E is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
obligation issued after the date of the enactment of this
Act.''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart I of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 54D. Qualified zone academy bonds.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 232. TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) Designation of Zone.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 1400 is amended
by striking ``2007'' both places it appears and inserting
``2008''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2007.
(b) Tax-Exempt Economic Development Bonds.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 1400A is amended
by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2007.
(c) Zero Percent Capital Gains Rate.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 1400B is amended
by striking ``2008'' each place it appears and inserting
``2009''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1400B(e)(2) is amended--
(i) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013'', and
(ii) by striking ``2012'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2013''.
(B) Section 1400B(g)(2) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2013''.
(C) Section 1400F(d) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2013''.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) Extension.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to acquisitions after December 31, 2007.
(B) Conforming amendments.--The amendments made by
paragraph (2) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(d) First-Time Homebuyer Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (i) of section 1400C is amended
by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2009''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to property purchased after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 233. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT FOR AMERICAN SAMOA.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 119 of division
A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended--
(1) by striking ``first two taxable years'' and inserting
``first 3 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 234. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FOOD INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 235. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
BOOK INVENTORY TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 236. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED COMPUTER
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made during taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
[[Page 10255]]
SEC. 237. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATIONS MAKING
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of section 1367(a)(2) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 238. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR HURRICANE KATRINA
EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 201(b) of the
Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 is amended by
striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``3-year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals hired after August 27, 2007.
SEC. 239. SUBPART F EXCEPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.
(a) Exempt Insurance Income.--Paragraph (10) of section
953(e) (relating to application) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January
1, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Exception to Treatment as Foreign Personal Holding
Company Income.--Paragraph (9) of section 954(h) (relating to
application) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
SEC. 240. LOOK-THRU RULE FOR RELATED CONTROLLED FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 954(c)(6)
(relating to application) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2008, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which such taxable
years of foreign corporations end.
SEC. 241. EXPENSING FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED FILM AND TELEVISION
PRODUCTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 181 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December
31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to productions commencing after December 31,
2008.
Subtitle C--Other Extensions
SEC. 251. AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATED TO
TERRORIST ACTIVITIES MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 6103(i)(3) is
amended by striking clause (iv).
(b) Disclosure on Request.--Paragraph (7) of section
6103(i) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to disclosures after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 252. AUTHORITY FOR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 7608 is amended
by striking paragraph (6).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2008.
SEC. 253. AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE RETURN INFORMATION FOR
CERTAIN VETERANS PROGRAMS MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 6103(l) is
amended by striking the last sentence thereof.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii)(III)
is amended by striking ``sections 1710(a)(1)(I), 1710(a)(2),
1710(b), and 1712(a)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``sections
1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to requests made after September 30, 2008.
SEC. 254. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX
TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United
States after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 255. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO
MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS.
Subsection (f) of section 9812 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraphs:
``(3) on or after January 1, 2008, and before the date of
the enactment of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of
2008, and
``(4) after December 31, 2008.''.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF
Subtitle A--Individual Tax Relief
SEC. 301. ADDITIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY
TAXES FOR NONITEMIZERS.
(a) In General.--Section 63(c)(1) (defining standard
deduction) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2008,
the real property tax deduction.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 63(c) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Real property tax deduction.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the real property tax deduction is the lesser
of--
``(A) the amount allowable as a deduction under this
chapter for State and local taxes described in section
164(a)(1), or
``(B) $350 ($700 in the case of a joint return).
Any taxes taken into account under section 62(a) shall not be
taken into account under this paragraph.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 302. REFUNDABLE CHILD CREDIT.
(a) Modification of Threshold Amount.--Clause (i) of
section 24(d)(1)(B) is amended by inserting ``($8,500 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2008)'' after ``$10,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 303. INCREASE OF AMT REFUNDABLE CREDIT AMOUNT FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH LONG-TERM UNUSED CREDITS FOR
PRIOR YEAR MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY, ETC.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 53(e) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) AMT refundable credit amount.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `AMT refundable credit amount' means,
with respect to any taxable year, the amount (not in excess
of the long-term unused minimum tax credit for such taxable
year) equal to the greater of--
``(A) 50 percent of the long-term unused minimum tax credit
for such taxable year, or
``(B) the amount (if any) of the AMT refundable credit
amount for the taxpayer's preceding taxable year (determined
without regard to subsection (f)(2)).''.
(b) Treatment of Certain Underpayments, Interest, and
Penalties Attributable to the Treatment of Incentive Stock
Options.--Section 53 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Treatment of Certain Underpayments, Interest, and
Penalties Attributable to the Treatment of Incentive Stock
Options.--
``(1) Abatement.--Any underpayment of tax outstanding on
the date of the enactment of this subsection which is
attributable to the application of section 56(b)(3) for any
taxable year ending before January 1, 2008 (and any interest
or penalty with respect to such underpayment which is
outstanding on such date of enactment), is hereby abated. The
amount determined under subsection (b)(1) shall not include
any tax abated under the preceding sentence.
``(2) Increase in credit for certain interest and penalties
already paid.--The AMT refundable credit amount, and the
minimum tax credit determined under subsection (b), for the
taxpayer's first 2 taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007, shall each be increased by 50 percent of the aggregate
amount of the interest and penalties which were paid by the
taxpayer before the date of the enactment of this subsection
and which would (but for such payment) have been abated under
paragraph (1).''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Abatement.--Section 53(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as added by subsection (b), shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--Business Related Provisions
SEC. 311. UNIFORM TREATMENT OF ATTORNEY-ADVANCED EXPENSES AND
COURT COSTS IN CONTINGENCY FEE CASES.
(a) In General.--Section 162 is amended by redesignating
subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after
subsection (p) the following new subsection:
``(q) Attorney-Advanced Expenses and Court Costs in
Contingency Fee Cases.--In the case of any expense or court
cost which is paid or incurred in the course of the trade or
business of practicing law and the repayment of which is
contingent on a recovery by judgment or settlement in the
action to which such expense or cost relates, the deduction
under subsection (a) shall be determined as if such expense
or cost was not subject to repayment.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenses and costs paid or incurred in taxable
years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 312. PROVISIONS RELATED TO FILM AND TELEVISION
PRODUCTIONS.
(a) Modification of Limitation on Expensing.--Subparagraph
(A) of section 181(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to so much
of the aggregate cost of any qualified film or television
production as exceeds $15,000,000.''.
(b) Modifications to Deduction for Domestic Activities.--
(1) Determination of w-2 wages.--Paragraph (2) of section
199(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for qualified film.--In the case of a
qualified film, such term shall include compensation for
services performed in the United States by actors, production
personnel, directors, and producers.''.
(2) Definition of qualified film.--Paragraph (6) of section
199(c) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A
qualified film shall include any copyrights, trademarks, or
other intangibles with respect to such film. The methods and
means of distributing a qualified film shall not affect the
availability of the deduction under this section.''.
[[Page 10256]]
(3) Partnerships.--Subparagraph (A) of section 199(d)(1) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) in the case of each partner of a partnership, or
shareholder of an S corporation, who owns (directly or
indirectly) at least 20 percent of the capital interests in
such partnership or of the stock of such S corporation--
``(I) such partner or shareholder shall be treated as
having engaged directly in any film produced by such
partnership or S corporation, and
``(II) such partnership or S corporation shall be treated
as having engaged directly in any film produced by such
partner or shareholder.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Expensing.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to qualified film and television productions commencing
after December 31, 2007.
Subtitle C--Modification of Penalty on Understatement of Taxpayer's
Liability by Tax Return Preparer
SEC. 321. 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 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 other than a position
described in subparagraph (C) 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 such
subparagraph (C), to returns prepared for taxable years
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle D--Extension and Expansion of Certain GO Zone Incentives
SEC. 331. CERTAIN GO ZONE INCENTIVES.
(a) Use of Amended Income Tax Returns To Take Into Account
Receipt of Certain Hurricane-Related Casualty Loss Grants by
Disallowing Previously Taken Casualty Loss Deductions.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a taxpayer claims a
deduction for any taxable year with respect to a casualty
loss to a principal residence (within the meaning of section
121 of such Code) resulting from Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane
Rita, or Hurricane Wilma and in a subsequent taxable year
receives a grant under Public Law 109-148, 109-234, or 110-
116 as reimbursement for such loss, such taxpayer may elect
to file an amended income tax return for the taxable year in
which such deduction was allowed (and for any taxable year to
which such deduction is carried) and reduce (but not below
zero) the amount of such deduction by the amount of such
reimbursement.
(2) Time of filing amended return.--Paragraph (1) shall
apply with respect to any grant only if any amended income
tax returns with respect to such grant are filed not later
than the later of--
(A) the due date for filing the tax return for the taxable
year in which the taxpayer receives such grant, or
(B) the date which is 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) Waiver of penalties and interest.--Any underpayment of
tax resulting from the reduction under paragraph (1) of the
amount otherwise allowable as a deduction shall not be
subject to any penalty or interest under such Code if such
tax is paid not later than 1 year after the filing of the
amended return to which such reduction relates.
(b) Waiver of Deadline on Construction of GO Zone Property
Eligible for Bonus Depreciation.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) without regard to `and before January 1, 2009' in
clause (i) thereof, and''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
(c) Inclusion of Certain Counties in Gulf Opportunity Zone
for Purposes of Tax-Exempt Bond Financing.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1400N is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Inclusion of certain counties.--For purposes of this
subsection, the Gulf Opportunity Zone includes Colbert
County, Alabama and Dallas County, Alabama.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 to which it relates.
TITLE IV--REVENUE PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION FROM CERTAIN TAX
INDIFFERENT PARTIES.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part II of subchapter E of
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 457 the
following new section:
``SEC. 457A. NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION FROM CERTAIN
TAX INDIFFERENT PARTIES.
``(a) In General.--Any compensation which is deferred under
a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of a nonqualified
entity shall be includible in gross income when there is no
substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such
compensation.
``(b) Nonqualified Entity.--For purposes of this section,
the term `nonqualified entity' means--
``(1) any foreign corporation unless substantially all of
its income is--
``(A) effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or
business in the United States, or
``(B) subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax, and
``(2) any partnership unless substantially all of its
income is allocated to persons other than--
``(A) foreign persons with respect to whom such income is
not subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax, and
``(B) organizations which are exempt from tax under this
title.
``(c) Determinability of Amounts of Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--If the amount of any compensation is not
determinable at the time that such compensation is otherwise
includible in gross income under subsection (a)--
``(A) such amount shall be so includible in gross income
when determinable, and
``(B) the tax imposed under this chapter for the taxable
year in which such compensation is includible in gross income
shall be increased by the sum of--
``(i) the amount of interest determined under paragraph
(2), and
``(ii) an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of such
compensation.
``(2) Interest.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(i), the
interest determined under this paragraph for any taxable year
is the amount of interest at the underpayment rate under
section 6621 plus 1 percentage point on the underpayments
that would have occurred had the deferred compensation been
includible in gross income for the taxable year in which
first deferred or, if later, the first taxable year in which
such deferred compensation is not subject to a substantial
risk of forfeiture.
``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Substantial risk of forfeiture.--
``(A) In general.--The rights of a person to compensation
shall be treated as subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture only if such person's rights to such compensation
are conditioned upon the future performance of substantial
services by any individual.
``(B) Exception for compensation based on gain recognized
on an investment asset.--
``(i) In general.--To the extent provided in regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, if compensation is determined
solely by reference to the amount of gain recognized on the
disposition of an investment asset, such compensation shall
be treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture
until the date of such disposition.
``(ii) Investment asset.--For purposes of clause (i), the
term `investment asset' means any single asset (other than an
investment fund or similar entity)--
``(I) acquired directly by an investment fund or similar
entity,
``(II) with respect to which such entity does not (nor does
any person related to such entity) participate in the active
management of such asset (or if such asset is an interest in
an entity, in the active management of the activities of such
entity), and
``(III) substantially all of any gain on the disposition of
which (other than such deferred compensation) is allocated to
investors in such entity.
``(iii) Coordination with special rule.--Paragraph (3)(B)
shall not apply to any compensation to which clause (i)
applies.
``(2) Comprehensive foreign income tax.--The term
`comprehensive foreign income tax' means, with respect to any
foreign person, the income tax of a foreign country if--
[[Page 10257]]
``(A) such person is eligible for the benefits of a
comprehensive income tax treaty between such foreign country
and the United States, or
``(B) such person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that such foreign country has a comprehensive
income tax.
``(3) Nonqualified deferred compensation plan.--
``(A) In general.--The term `nonqualified deferred
compensation plan' has the meaning given such term under
section 409A(d), except that such term shall include any plan
that provides a right to compensation based on the
appreciation in value of a specified number of equity units
of the service recipient.
``(B) Exception.--Compensation shall not be treated as
deferred for purposes of this section if the service provider
receives payment of such compensation not later than 12
months after the end of the taxable year of the service
recipient during which the right to the payment of such
compensation is no longer subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture.
``(4) Exception for certain compensation with respect to
effectively connected income.--In the case a foreign
corporation with income which is taxable under section 882,
this section shall not apply to compensation which, had such
compensation had been paid in cash on the date that such
compensation ceased to be subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture, would have been deductible by such foreign
corporation against such income.
``(5) Application of rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 409A(d) shall apply.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations
disregarding a substantial risk of forfeiture in cases where
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 26(b)(2) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (U), by striking
the period at the end of subparagraph (V) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(W) section 457A(c)(1)(B) (relating to determinability of
amounts of compensation).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of subpart B
of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 457 the
following new item:
``Sec. 457A. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax
indifferent parties.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to amounts deferred which are attributable to services
performed after December 31, 2008.
(2) Application to existing deferrals.--In the case of any
amount deferred to which the amendments made by this section
do not apply solely by reason of the fact that the amount is
attributable to services performed before January 1, 2009, to
the extent such amount is not includible in gross income in a
taxable year beginning before 2018, such amounts shall be
includible in gross income in the later of--
(A) the last taxable year beginning before 2018, or
(B) the taxable year in which there is no substantial risk
of forfeiture of the rights to such compensation (determined
in the same manner as determined for purposes of section 457A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this
section).
(3) Charitable contributions of existing deferrals
permitted.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply to (and
subsections (b) and (d) of such section shall be applied
without regard to) so much of the taxpayer's qualified
contributions made during the taxpayer's last taxable year
beginning before 2018 as does not exceed the taxpayer's
qualified inclusion amount. For purposes of subsection (b) of
section 170 of such Code, the taxpayer's contribution base
for such last taxable year shall be reduced by the amount of
the taxpayer's qualified contributions to which such
subsection does not apply by reason the preceding sentence.
(B) Qualified contributions.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``qualified contributions'' means the
aggregate charitable contributions (as defined in section
170(c) of such Code) paid in cash by the taxpayer to
organizations described in section 170(b)(1)(A) of such Code
(other than any organization described in section 509(a)(3)
of such Code or any fund or account described in section
4966(d)(2) of such Code).
(C) Qualified inclusion amount.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``qualified inclusion amount'' means the
amount includible in the taxpayer's gross income for the last
taxable year beginning before 2018 by reason of paragraph
(2).
(4) Accelerated payments.--No later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue
guidance providing a limited period of time during which a
nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement attributable
to services performed on or before December 31, 2008, may,
without violating the requirements of section 409A(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be amended to conform the date
of distribution to the date the amounts are required to be
included in income.
(5) Certain back-to-back arrangements.--If the taxpayer is
also a service recipient and maintains one or more
nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements for its
service providers under which any amount is attributable to
services performed on or before December 31, 2008, the
guidance issued under paragraph (4) shall permit such
arrangements to be amended to conform the dates of
distribution under such arrangement to the date amounts are
required to be included in the income of such taxpayer under
this subsection.
(6) Accelerated payment not treated as material
modification.--Any amendment to a nonqualified deferred
compensation arrangement made pursuant to paragraph (4) or
(5) shall not be treated as a material modification of the
arrangement for purposes of section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 402. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCATION OF
INTEREST.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of section
864(f) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.
SEC. 403. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.
(a) Repeal of Adjustment for 2012.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 401(1) of the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking the
percentage contained therein and inserting ``100 percent''.
(b) Modification of Adjustment for 2013.--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 37.75
percentage points.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friends and colleagues, we now have an opportunity to reverse the
trend that this great Nation has bound itself to, and that is, the
addiction to oil as well as the lack of will to do something about it.
This great country has faced up to many crises, and the oil shortage
just happens to be one. The question is do we have the will to look and
to research and to find alternative means in which to meet the needs of
this great Nation.
Under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, I think today is the day that
all of us are going to be proud of the initiatives that we have taken,
the opportunities that are going to be given, the jobs that are going
to be created, and the excitement in being able to say that the United
States need not look to any Nation because of their vast resources in
oil because we have the ingenuity and the ability to find alternatives.
It is endless the possibilities that this will pursue in encouraging
the production of electricity from renewable sources, using the wind,
solar, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste.
{time} 1400
We even go as far as to have coal electricity plants.
It is a great opportunity for us and the world to explore these new
areas that we just were too lazy or found no need to do, encouraging
energy efficient products such as plug-in hybrid cars and incentives
for conservation of energy in our buildings, whether they're
residential or whether they're commercial. And I find it very exciting
that we allow local government, that knows their communities better
than we ever could, to issue tax credit bonds to further explore how we
can conserve energy.
I think this is merely a beginning, but it is an historic beginning
that defies party lines. I do hope that we thank the Speaker and the
chairman of the committee, the staffs who came together after working
years on this project, to come together with a bill that's the
beginning of the one that could be a new day for America, a new day for
the world as we release our addiction and dependency on fossil fuel.
There is another part of this bill that I come to you with mixed
feelings and yet ask your support. It's called the extenders. What are
the extenders, for the new Members? It's when people want bills passed,
but they put expiration dates on them in order to hide the real cost of
the bill.
I think that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means
and I agree that we have so much garbage
[[Page 10258]]
in this bill that soon I hope someone would have the courage to take a
look at the tax bill that we have and strip it of the preferential
treatment and get down to making the bills that we want permanent, and
those that should not be permanent, just to kick them out.
I think it's a disgrace that we have a stimulus package and we have
to target the middle class in order to be given handouts because they
don't have enough money under our tax system to put food on the table,
to provide tuition for their kids and put clothes on their back. We
target them as being people who cannot afford to save and plan for the
future. I think it is a disgrace for the Congress to have a tax system
that way.
But because we make commitments and because some of these laws are
good and efficient and because we don't have the money at this point in
time to make it permanent, we come to you and ask you to support the
extenders. These extenders include research and development, standard
deduction for property taxes for non-itemizers. We have provisions in
here to help Katrina. Expanded child credits. We make it more equitable
how attorneys can write off their investments before the end of a case.
We also make it equitable for the moving picture industry to get the
same benefits that other industries get as relates to job credit.
This is one heck of an opportunity, I think, for us to move this
forward in a short way. It's only a 1-year extension, which means that
the next administration hopefully will be more progressive in terms of
cleaning up the code and making permanent what should be made
permanent. It is not paid in controversial taxes. We remove preferences
for income that is made overseas and avoid tax liability, as well as
tax benefits yet to be received. So there is no pain there.
I ask unanimous consent at this time to yield the remainder of my
time to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott, for purposes of
managing the bill, and to thank him and so many others on the Ways and
Means Committee for their leadership, their patience, and being able to
bring this bill to the floor. I'm fairly confident that we will have
very little problem in the Senate and have this passed into law.
So remember the date. It's historic in nature. And remember the role
that you played in supporting this revolutionary approach to avoid the
dependency on fossil fuel for our great Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Washington will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us today
and urge all of my colleagues to vote against it today.
Most critically, the bill claims to be a package of tax extenders,
but fails to deal with the biggest and most pressing extender in the
code, the AMT patch, the alternative minimum tax patch. This is a
missed opportunity. We should have included that in this bill of other
expiring provisions in the code.
The majority's failure to extend this patch for 2008 would mean an
additional 21 million--mostly middle class--individuals and families
would be ensnared by the alternative minimum tax. As a result, affected
families will pay an additional $61.5 billion in taxes for this year.
This oversight--this neglect, I think--is the single largest flaw in
the bill.
The majority, I'm sure, will claim during today's debate, just as
they did during committee markup, that they will address the AMT before
adjourning this year, just not now. Surely our experience from 2007,
when the AMT patch wasn't enacted until the day after Christmas,
suggests that maybe we ought to begin acting on this now and not just
run down the shot clock. Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense to
vote to extend dozens of tax provisions, some for several years,
without also dealing with the biggest and most far-reaching expiring
provision, the AMT patch.
The bill also clings to the mistaken view that the House's PAYGO
rules require us to raise taxes in order to prevent tax increases. I
was pleased last year that, when the House finally did pass the AMT
patch, we recognized the foolishness of applying PAYGO to expiring tax
provisions, and I'm disappointed that that bipartisan approach is not
being followed here today.
Simply put, we shouldn't have to pay to extend current law. This is
not paying for a new tax cut in the main. Most of this bill is
extending current law.
As we stare at the prospect of a more than $3.5 trillion tax increase
baked into the budget by the majority's misguided PAYGO rules, I think
it will become even more obvious in the years to come why Congress
should not have to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase.
If the majority was ever willing to offset tax provisions with
spending cuts, I might view this a little differently. But this bill
shows once again that the only tool the majority has to meet its PAYGO
requirements is the hammer of tax increases. It's little wonder, then,
that to them every problem looks like a nail.
As I documented many times last year and during our committee markup
last week, Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. We're getting
enough revenues. We're already collecting more in taxes as a percent of
our GDP than the historical average of revenues coming into Washington.
That's not the problem. The problem is spending. So how many times have
we had PAYGO rules be adopted and followed in this House using spending
cuts to pay for extending current tax law? Zero.
Mr. Speaker, the continued use of tax increases to pay for extending
current law is unacceptable to this ranking member of the Ways and
Means Committee, and I hope will be objectionable to a majority of the
Members of this House. In fact, this bill not only contains tax cuts,
it actually does increase spending. There are items in this bill that
score as spending--expanding refundable tax credits, the New York
Liberty Zone project. Those score as spending. So we're increasing
spending in this bill, and we're paying for that with tax increases.
In addition to those two provisions, the bill contains numerous other
new temporary and permanent provisions, undermining the claim that the
bill is merely extending current law. Some of the new provisions might
be meritorious, but a few of those I think deserve closer examination.
For example, some of my colleagues may be surprised to know that
there is a nearly $1.6 billion special tax break for trial lawyers in
this bill. The provision overrides developing case law and lets lawyers
using certain types of contingency fee arrangements to deduct sooner
their expenses. CBO's Joint Tax Committee scores this as costing the
taxpayers $1.6 billion over the next 10 years. Now, this provision was
not the subject, that I'm aware of, of any hearings or examination by
the committee, and yet it's in this bill today.
I would hope that before we make such a significant change in tax law
costing taxpayers $1.6 billion, all going to one very narrow set of
people in this country, trial lawyers, that we would want to have a
hearing on that and flesh it out to see if maybe it could be crafted
better, or whether, in fact, it's of any value at all to the country.
This bill also revisits the ``green pork'' tax credit bonds that were
much discussed during the energy debate in 2007. These are the same
bond proceeds, remember, that could be used for all sorts of dubious
projects, maybe hybrid snowmobiles in Aspen, or maybe a new Wal-Mart
with a couple of solar panels out front.
State and local governments using the bond proceeds don't even have
to certify that the projects will reduce fossil fuel consumption or
greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the majority rejected a
sensible fix for this oversight when this was offered last year.
We know how this is all going to end. It will end with the passage of
an AMT patch without offsets, like last year, and probably many
extenders being approved without tax increases. More than 40 Senators
have signed a letter pledging to oppose a package such as the one
before the House today. And
[[Page 10259]]
even if it somehow squeaks by the Senate, the President has indicated
he would veto this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the majority has chosen against
moving a bill on expiring provisions that could have had bipartisan
support and instead have opted for the measure before us.
Given that its fate has already been sealed--it won't become law--I
am comforted to know that we will have another chance to consider this
legislation this year. I hope it's sooner rather than later so that
we're not here in December once again scrambling to deal with these
issues.
We can do better than what's before us today. Let's get rid of this,
start over, and bring a good bill back.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 6049.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of affection and I
have a great deal of respect for the ranking member on the other side,
but you are dead wrong on this.
First of all, you talk about this side of the aisle not being able to
pass AMT. We did pass legislation, and your side sunk it. The
alternative minimum tax would be gone, it would be abolished, there
would be nada there, but you decided, for whatever reason, that you
didn't want to pay for it. That's the problem.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are determined not to
support this legislation. It should be noted that entities such as
Goldman Sachs--I mean, these are not, most of the time, our friends--
Bank of America, Caterpillar, Ford, Deere, and Prudential disagree with
you, and they publicly support the legislation.
Connect the dots here. After all, a number of important provisions,
such as the critical research and development credit, the election to
deduct State and local general sales tax, the 15-year straight-line
cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements, and the election to
expense brownfields environmental remediation costs have already
expired. These provisions are so important to American businesses and
consumers, and the time to renew them is now.
There are a wide array of important provisions here, from renewable
energy incentives to middle class tax cuts. I want to add how grateful
we should all be to Chairman Rangel for his decision to include a 1-
year extension on the active financing rules critical to global
competitiveness of U.S. financial services and companies. Those
companies in this country that export are at a tremendous disadvantage.
We are not playing on a level playing field. Active financing rules
provide American companies with the level playing field necessary to
compete in the global marketplace. Most other countries don't try to
extract any taxes on its companies' foreign-based operations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The time of the gentleman from
New Jersey has expired.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. Subjecting our businesses to both foreign and American
corporate taxes puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
I would add this, in conclusion, these are the kind of actions that
will help create fair trade in America. You cannot be against that, in
all fairness.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, in fact, I agree with much of what the
gentleman just said. I'm happy to hear him endorse many provisions that
we, I think wisely, put into the Jobs bill several years ago when we
were in the majority. So it's not those provisions that I oppose, it's
the tax increases in the bill to pay for just extending current law
that I'm opposed to. And I want to make that clear. I like the
provisions the gentleman mentioned.
{time} 1415
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the ranking
member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I want to
express my support for the tax relief included in today's legislation,
provisions such as the research and development tax credit and the
active financing exception that help our employers stay competitive and
the extension of the renewable energy tax incentives.
However, I cannot support this bill as written. First, it continues
the negative trend the Democrat majority has followed by permanently
increasing taxes to pay for temporary extensions of existing tax law.
Given the wide-ranging tax relief that is set to expire in the coming
years, the Democrats' PAYGO logic would require us to raise taxes by
more than $3.5 trillion between now and 2018.
Secondly, the bill ``dodges'' extending the middle class alternative
minimum tax patch, without which 24 million taxpayers will pay an
average of $2,400 in AMT taxes in 2008 alone. We waited until the 11th
hour to extend this relief in 2007. We cannot do so again.
Tragically, the House Democrats refuse to work on these issues on a
bipartisan basis. Their tax increase approach has been tried and tried
again, and for what we have seen in the other body and from what the
White House has said, it will fail again. The longer we delay passing a
realistic extenders bill, the longer American employers and taxpayers
go without this critical tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is pro-environment, it's business
friendly, and it's paid for.
I don't know how anybody on the other side can mention the words
``alternative minimum tax'' with a straight face. They had sufficient
opportunity in the last session of the Congress to vote for a
responsible alternative minimum tax repeal. I know. I authored the
legislation. They all voted against it.
I want to thank Charlie Rangel today for his hard work. There are a
number of business and individual tax incentives that lapsed in January
of this year. There was urgency to getting it done, and we did
precisely that. In my home State of Massachusetts this means that
94,000 teachers will get a deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for
classroom supplies. It means that a thousand businesses in
Massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on
research here in the United States. Without this bill 121,000 families
in Massachusetts cannot take deduction for college tuition expenses.
This bill provides significant and real tax relief to millions of
families nationwide and for some very low income families it will
provide a new benefit. There are 111,000 children in Massachusetts
whose families will get a higher tax credit because of this bill.
There are an additional 32,000 children and families in Massachusetts
who are currently shut out of the child tax credit because of the
threshold for earnings that must exceed rises each year for inflation.
They're simply too poor for the tax credit. This bill lowers the
threshold so that these working families can benefit from the child tax
credit just like other families.
These are well-crafted positions, and we don't have time to mention
them all. But I want to tell you in the 20 years I have been in this
House, this is one of the best pieces of legislation that I have been
associated with. It provides tax relief, but at the same time it's pro-
environment.
I hope that Members of this House on both sides will support this
legislation.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Health
Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee.
[[Page 10260]]
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it's surprising how well the Democrat majority can turn
good ideas like the extension of tax relief into bad legislation. Now,
we have seen it before and it usually ends in gridlock. And, frankly,
the American people are tired of the majority party's record of
stalemate and zero accomplishment. But here we go again with another
bill that is headed nowhere.
This bill could have easily passed the Ways and Means Committee and
passed on the floor with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of votes.
It failed to get a majority of Republican votes in committee and will
likely fail to get a Republican majority here today on the floor.
Interestingly, a lot of what is in this package was written when
Republicans were in the majority. The Republican bill was devoted to
tax incentives; the Democrat bill focuses on tax increase. This is a
fundamental difference between our two parties.
It is a real missed opportunity not to deal with the alternative
minimum tax, which means higher taxes for more and more Americans.
That's why you're seeing key groups oppose this bill like the National
Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax
Reform, Alliance for Worker Freedom, Americans for Prosperity, and Club
for Growth.
So what the Democrats give with one hand they take with the other.
They'll use words like ``PAYGO'' and ``revenue raisers,'' but the fact
of the matter is those innocent-sounding words really mean tax
increases. Permanently increasing taxes to pay for temporary tax
incentives is a losing deal for the American people.
Congress will be confronted with many more expiring tax provisions in
the coming years, and if the Democrats continue with this flawed logic,
taxpayers will be hit with more than $3.5 trillion in tax increases
between now and 2018 simply to maintain current law. With $3 and
possibly $4 of gas and higher grocery bills, a sluggish economy, and a
downturn in the housing market, the American public cannot afford
higher taxes.
We don't need a fortune teller to tell us that, just like many of the
other bills House Democrats have passed that included tax increases,
this bill again is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. So we
will be back here again at some point debating this bill again. So
after we get through with today's exercise, hopefully we can get down
to business and write a bill that will gain a majority of bipartisan
support.
I urge my colleagues to reject increasing taxes and vote ``no'' on
this legislation.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I understand from my distinguished
colleague from Michigan that this bill is headed for nowhere.
Are you talking about the White House?
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. No, I'm going to let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) have 2 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has vital energy provisions.
Vital. It has important tax provisions, including the R&D tax credit.
So here we hear the Republicans opposing it. They did not know how to
govern effectively when they were in the majority, and they're showing
today they don't know how to oppose effectively when they're in the
minority.
They criticize PAYGO. Their creed is ``pay-no.'' They don't want to
pay for anything. They oppose a tax provision to close a loophole, an
egregious one, and they call that a tax increase. They say this is
their principle: Don't pay for extending current tax law, even though
the reason it meets its end is because they didn't want to extend it a
few years ago and increase the deficit. What illogic.
They say do further with the extenders, but they don't want to pay
for it. They say do more right now on the AMT but don't pay for it.
We're going to keep working on the AMT. We're going to keep trying to
pay for it. The reason this may not succeed in the Senate is because of
the minority Republicans and in the White House.
I think the public is tired of this blockade. We will keep moving
ahead and I hope with success. It's time to act. I hope there will be
some minority support for this bill.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's being sold
around here today, but there is nothing revolutionary about this bill.
There are some good things in it, no question. But it is dangerously
incomplete and it is tainted.
It includes a last-minute special interest provision that no one in
America has ever had a chance to look at or consider. It is not
revolutionary because it includes extensions of what's already law in
America today, the research and development tax credit, that's so
important to innovation America. The State and local sales tax
deduction, important for families to deduct what they pay in sales
taxes from what they owe Uncle Sam because sales taxes really add up
fast, especially for younger families. Energy provisions, which are
important for us to do renewable alternative fuels. All that is very
good. Everyone supports it.
This bill is dangerously incomplete because it does not address a
huge looming tax increase on most of middle class America. The
alternative minimum tax, the second tax, that families find when they
do their taxes or do their software for taxes, and they're okay, they
don't owe Uncle Sam anything. We catch them with a second tax. And we
said over the years that we'll do away with that. Republicans did do
away with that second tax. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed it,
and we live with it today.
This bill does nothing to stop the alternative minimum tax, the
second tax, on American families, and we need to act now, not later to
do that.
It is tainted because it includes a provision, $1.6 billion, a new
tax break, for one special interest group, plaintiffs' attorneys with
contingency fees. The wealthiest 1 percent of attorneys in America will
receive $1.5 billion more of your money.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCRERY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the wealthiest 1 percent of
attorneys in America will receive a tax break courtesy of you, the
taxpayers. Yet we won't do more to help the refundable child tax
credit. Those are single parents who are usually raising one or two
kids and working several jobs. We offered the amendment. Instead of
helping a trial lawyer buy a second private jet, why don't we help a
waitress who's trying to raise her kids? Wouldn't that be a fair use of
help and dollars?
So I oppose this bill. I believe we ought to do these extensions, and
I believe this bill does not deserve support.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised to hear my Republican friends talk about
their dismay that AMT is not in this package. AMT was not in the
President's budget, not one nickel, not one cent. I never heard one
word in the Ways and Means Committee, not a word that I can recall, of
dismay from my Republicans that the President didn't address AMT.
This bill before us is to address a number of expiring provisions
including energy. Good gosh, with oil approaching $130 a barrel, you
would think we could bust out an energy portion and make an immediate
response. The American people deserve no less.
Just take, for example, one provision: The wind production tax credit
expires at the end of the year. But to be effective, a wind power plant
has to be invested, constructed, and turning energy in order to qualify
under the 2008 provision for the production tax credit. What that means
in real terms is that already activity is being placed at risk.
Financing packages are being denied for growing wind power in this
country.
[[Page 10261]]
{time} 1430
Our upside potential on harnessing power for wind is immense. But
even the, I'd say paltry, 1-year extension under the bill, because this
industry deserves much more than 1 year, is placed at risk now by
Republican opposition.
Fundamentally, we believe if we are going to extend these tax
provisions, we need to find revenue offsets so that we don't drive the
deficit deeper. I think what this debate is really about is a very
different vision. They're happy to just run up the debt even deeper by
extending these provisions without the pay-fors. We refuse to do that.
As important as these provisions are, we are not going to let our kids
pay for them. We will pay for them right here and now by finding the
appropriate offsets.
So for the interest of the people in this country in getting
renewable energy sources, especially wind power, let's advance this
legislation.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I listened to my good friend, Charlie Rangel, the Chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, from New York, a while ago, and he was
talking about all these areas where we are going to get additional
energy. There were some great ideas there. The problem is many of them
are going to take a long, long time before we get the job done.
Right now, people in this country are paying close to $4 a gallon for
gasoline, and the issue is we have a supply of oil in this country that
will take care of most of the problem. We can drill in the ANWR and get
a million to 2 million barrels of oil a day. That is three-and-a-half
times the size of Texas, Alaska is, and we can't do it because they say
it's environmentally dangerous. We can drill off the Continental Shelf
and get a million to 2 million barrels of oil a day. They won't let us
drill off the Continental Shelf, and yet Cuba is going to drill within
50 miles of the United States and give the oil to China.
They are using all these environmentally questionable issues to keep
us from drilling for oil in this country to be energy independent. We
have been talking about energy independence for 30, 40 years, and we
haven't done a darn thing about it. The Speaker said here not long ago,
about 2 years ago, they were going to do something about skyrocketing
gas prices when it was $2.33 gallon. Now it's approaching $4 a gallon
and we can't even drill for oil that's in our country to reduce the
cost of gasoline.
The American people want solutions. They want Democrats and
Republicans to come together and do what is necessary to help them with
their energy problems. They want us to work together. We need to have
some balance between environmental concerns and the cost that we need
to deal with regarding this economy, and that means we need to lower
the price of energy, especially gasoline, so people can get to and from
work and deal with the problems they face on a daily basis. There's no
question about that. Gasoline should not be $4 a gallon, and we can
lower it if we drill for oil in our country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. While we are talking about the long-term
problems of energy and dealing with new technologies, and we are all
for that, we have to deal with the immediate problem, and the immediate
problem is drill for oil in this country, build more refineries so we
can get that oil to market and lower the gas prices like the Americans
want it be to lowered back down to around $2 a gallon or less.
We can do it. But we will never do it unless we work together,
Democrats and Republicans. All I hear from the other side of the aisle
is, No; we have to worry about the environment. There has to be a
balance between environment and economic concerns, and we are not doing
it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today, we are going to approve a plan that will produce significant
new energy resources for the American people. We have passed this bill
four times. Mr. Brady is right. There is nothing new here. We keep
passing it and passing it and the oil companies keep killing it.
What you're hearing today, just the last speaker says, let's drill in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or go hat in hand to OPEC and say,
Please produce more oil. Or let's have some more secret meetings down
in the White House with the Vice President and design a new tax policy
that will get our oil prices even higher. They met in the first months
in the White House and decided how to drive up the oil prices for the
oil companies.
We are going to implement a tax plan that uses the Tax Code to
produce renewable energy to put us on a path to providing our children
with an energy-independent future. The plan creates incentives for
America to apply technology and use practices to use energy more
efficiently than the way we are presently doing.
There was a time a long time ago when the United States led in
alternative energy. But now Denmark, Japan and Germany are far ahead of
us because of 8 years of this present administration and their
attitudes toward alternative energy.
With this legislation, we'll take a big step toward regaining our
leadership in the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy. This
legislation will not only create jobs in what may be the world's
largest emerging industry, but it will be a blueprint for the energy
policy for the 21st century.
We need to end our addiction to oil, and that's what this bill is
about. I urge my colleagues to support it this time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
We are for extending these good tax policies on research and
development, we are for extending these good tax policies on energy
research particularly. As Republicans, as conservatives, as people who
actually brought these tax policies to the table to start with, of
course we are for them.
Now a 1-year extension is not the right amount of time. We can debate
that. I hope we have time to because this is not the last day we are
going to see this bill. If you're really serious about energy research,
try to go to borrow money with a 1-year plan. You can't borrow money
with a 1-year plan. You can't take a chance with a 1-year plan. You
can't hire people with a 1-year plan. Surely, everybody here knows
that.
If we were really serious about extending these policies, we would be
sending signals that we are committed to these policies for a long
time. But we are for the policies that we are talking about in current
law. We are not nearly as excited about the new things that are added;
the tax breaks for lawyers who have taken a case on contingency and now
want taxpayers to subsidize their dealing with that case by these new
ideas in the Tax Code. But we are for the continuation of good
policies. But we are not for believing that to continue good tax
policies, you have to pay for those by taxing other people.
If these tax policies are good enough for now, they are good enough
to continue to be the policies of the future. This House decided last
year on the alternative minimum tax that, well, we don't want more
people to slip into that bad tax situation so we are going to move
forward without having taxes that replace what would happen if we
didn't try to maintain the current status of taxes.
That is what we are for, maintaining current policies, giving them as
much life as possible, and not assuming that other taxpayers have to
suffer in an economy that we need to be sending signs of growth and
productivity to,
[[Page 10262]]
not signs of more ideas for the Federal Government to increase taxes.
I hope we can come back to a bill that extends good policy, that does
it for a longer period of time, and doesn't seem to feel it's necessary
to tax other people to extend policies that are working in the Tax Code
today.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from
Missouri that during the 6 years that the Bush administration had a
rubber-stamp Congress up here, they put it out 1 year at a time. Now
you want us to make it long. We will see.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. The prior speaker said you can't have a plan for 1 year.
What he didn't mention is that the Bush administration and the
Republican Congress hadn't had a plan for 7 years, and look where it's
gotten us.
The fact is a lot of people want to talk about you have to have a
balanced approach. That's true. You do have to have some drilling.
There are 9,300 permits owned by the oil companies here in the United
States for drilling that they do not use. Close to 72 percent. They
don't use. They are not drilling. Could alleviate today. They are
waiting for the price to increase before they drill. Those permits have
been issued. So that is part of a plan.
What we are talking about today is seizing future energy sources, be
that wind, solar, biomass. In fact, today, the Wall Street Journal,
lead story, the Pentagon knows and it is launching, according to the
headline, an alternative fuels strategy. The Pentagon knows that.
Corporate America is investing in alternative energy sources. They know
that. The American consumer knows you have got to have a different
strategy than the one that depends only on oil. The only people that
don't know that you need to have a diverse energy policy is the White
House and sometimes I believe some of the Republican Members of
Congress here.
We need an energy policy so it begins to invest in 21st century
energy sources, like wind and solar, and stop subsidizing 20th century
energy sources, which is only oil. This gives us an agenda, a strategy
to look to the future, build new technologies, new industries that will
employ hundreds of thousands of people, and invest and give America its
energy independence.
Second, it does not cost the American taxpayer. This is a paid-for
piece of legislation by closing offshore deferrals where a lot of
people hide their income in offshore deferrals. In fact, Congressman
McCrery and Senator Grassley both acknowledge it is a decent way to pay
for something. Whether they agree for this, they do agree it's a
legitimate pay-for.
Third, there's a lot of talk about middle class and the suffering in
the middle class. This legislation provides property tax relief for
middle class families.
Remember that this is the first step toward energy independence and
making sure that we build on the progress we have made, such as CAFE
standards for cars.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I assure the gentleman from Illinois that despite the fact there
might be 9,300 permits to drill out there that aren't being utilized, I
am sure there are good reasons for not utilizing those permits. I can
assure the gentleman that if we opened up ANWR, if we opened up the
Continental Shelf and more parts of the Gulf of Mexico, we would have
domestic oil companies taking advantage and drilling to produce.
Mr. EMANUEL. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. McCRERY. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. EMANUEL. We can have a legitimate debate about Alaska. We have
had 20 years of it. What I am suggesting, and you would agree that
Alaska is 10 years down the road.
Mr. McCRERY. I don't agree with that.
Mr. EMANUEL. Alaska is not today. There are 9,300 permits that have
been issued today for onshore drilling not being exercised by the oil
companies.
Mr. McCRERY. Reclaiming my time, I don't quarrel that that may be
correct. But it's beside the point. There may be legitimate reasons why
those particular permits are not being utilized. But the fact is, by
law our companies cannot drill in ANWR, they cannot drill in the Outer
Continental Shelf beyond a few areas in the Gulf of Mexico. And that is
wrong.
Look, my 14-year-old son this morning, I am driving him to school and
the radio report came on that oil hit $130 a barrel, and my son says,
Dad, why don't we just tell OPEC to produce more oil? Well, he's a
pretty smart kid. That would help. But I said, Son, if we told OPEC to
drill for more oil and then they turned it around and said, Well, why
doesn't the United States drill for more oil.
Mr. EMANUEL. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCRERY. No, I've already given you some time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana controls the
time.
Mr. McCRERY. What if they told us, Why doesn't the United States
drill for more oil, what would our answer be? We don't know, because
Democrats for years have blocked every sensible environmentally sound
plan to explore and develop known resources here in this country, and
that is a shame. We ought to have a balanced energy policy. Yes,
alternative sources that we Republicans put in legislation several
years ago, passed the bill, I believe, in 2005, and began a lot of
these credits that we are extending today. We agree with that.
Mr. EMANUEL. Will you yield for a second?
Mr. McCRERY. Let us develop the resources we know we have, the proper
fuel resources that can help immediately.
Mr. EMANUEL. Just one second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana controls the
time.
Mr. McCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
{time} 1445
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I really believe that we need to have our own
American-made energy, and we have the resources here. I have been a
leading advocate in Energy and Commerce on alternative energies, on
wind, solar, geothermal, closed-loop biomass and cellulosic ethanol,
and these tax credits, I think, are important in that process. We need
to have a complete portfolio that includes alternatives, these types of
alternatives. But I have to say that I am disappointed greatly in the
fact that we are extending these for 1 year.
I have sat down with the leading folks in especially wind energy.
And, by the way, let's not confuse these sources that generate
electricity with putting fuel in our cars. Most of these generate
electricity, like wind. We need it. But they can't take their business
plan to the bank on a 1-year tax credit. They said they need at least a
5-year, and prefer a 10-year.
If we are very serious about making alternatives part of our energy
portfolio, we need a 5- to 10-year plan to extend these tax credits.
Otherwise, we are just simply perpetrating a hoax upon the American
public that is looking towards Congress to find a way to alleviate the
pressures of high gas costs. It is about what they are paying when they
pull up to the pumps. So if we are serious about it, let's do a long-
term tax credit bill that is actually going to be usable by the folks
that want to invest in these alternatives.
Yes, we do a little bit better job on solar. I am surprised that they
pulled one out and treated that so specially, when all the others are
just so meritorious. And, by the way, I am not sure we have gotten to
the technology yet where we can have wind panels and solar panels
operating our cars for us. They can generate electricity if we want to
do a plug-in, but even that we are not doing a long-term plan for.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time remains on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
[[Page 10263]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington State.
I want to commend Mr. Rangel and Mr. Neal for an outstanding piece of
legislation that they have put before us. I am particularly pleased
with the extension of credits as it relates to fuel cell and geothermal
technology, but wind and solar as well. To extend these credits in a
manner that will allow us to become energy independent is something
that is long overdue for this Nation. Let us hope that our colleagues
on the other side are able to join us in making sure that we take a
positive step forward for the future of energy independence.
What seems apparently is the stumbling block on the other side is
that we are providing that we pay for this, and that we are doing so
by, well, taxing a group of people who otherwise go untaxed and yet
reap all the benefits of this great Nation. But those poor hedge fund
guys who sequester their funds offshore and are making millions of
dollars, to subjugate them to a tax, oh, just the thought of it sends a
shudder up the spines of our dear friends on the other side. Imagine
the people back home, the people that they talk about, that Mr. Burton
said need this relief immediately. But to do so by taxing offshore
hedge funds? Well, we can't have a part of that.
It is time for this country to get serious about energy independence.
It is time for us to step up to the plate and for Americans to
understand that people who are making funds offshore paying no taxes
ought to contribute to making sure that we are able to move this Nation
forward in the direction of energy independence.
I commend Chairman Rangel and Richard Neal for this fine proposal.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if my good friend Mr. Larson's description of the tax
increase in the bill were correct, I wouldn't have any quarrel with it.
However, the provision affects more than just offshore hedge fund
managers. It affects any employee working for a company based offshore
in any business. So it is much broader than the gentleman described,
and that is the main reason that I oppose that provision in its current
form.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our Chair, Mr.
Rangel; Mr. Neal, our subcommittee Chair; Mr. McDermott; and all the
members of this committee for this great piece of legislation around
energy and tax extenders.
I know my colleagues have done a great job talking about the energy
portion of the bill, so I am going to move straight to a couple of
areas that are important specifically to people who reside in my
congressional district.
In my role as the Chair of the Congressional Philanthropic Caucus, I
am especially pleased to see the inclusion of the IRA rollover
provision, which has become an important fund-raising and development
tool in the philanthropic community. More and more today we are calling
upon the philanthropic organizations to do the job that others have
stepped away from.
In addition, the extension of the active finance exemption sends a
message to corporate America that this Congress has their interests at
heart because this provision, along with the subpart F look-through,
allows them to remain competitive and keep jobs here and not abroad.
The tenets of sound tax policy begin with the notion of equity,
efficiency and simplicity. Relying on the traditional framework, I am
certain that we are driving towards a rational consensus.
It is in this environment or within this context I am pleased to
support this piece of legislation, and encourage my colleagues
throughout the Congress to join us in passing this legislation that
will impact energy and other extenders in the Tax Code.
The Procter & Gamble Company,
Cincinnati, OH, May 20, 2008.
Hon. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones,
U.S. Representative, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Tubbs-Jones: I want to take this
opportunity to thank you for your leadership in the Ways &
Means Committee's consideration of H.R. 6049, the Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act. House passage of H.R. 6049,
including the so-called CFC Look-through rule, is very
important for us to remain competitive in markets around the
world.
Your efforts to include the extension, the so-called CFC
Look-through rule in H.R. 6049, were critical to the ability
of P&G, and many other American companies, to serve our
customers and consumers around the world. We look forward to
working with you as this legislation moves through the House
of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McDonald,
Chief Operating Officer.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, since the majority has so much more time
left than the minority, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
There have been some stark differences in the debate here today, but
there is one thing that is clear: There is a clear record of failed
fiscal discipline on the part of our friends on the Republican side of
the aisle; 12 years of failure to deal with the alternative minimum
tax, including 6 years of that time when they controlled the entire
process, their failure to cut spending while they borrowed money on our
children's credit card to give tax benefits to those who need it the
least, and for 12 years they refused to fix the AMT.
There is going to be a new era in Washington in 242 days where we
will be able to deal comprehensively with tax reform, and I look
forward to it. But, in the meantime, it is critical to give Americans
more energy choices, and this legislation does precisely that.
In particular, it would extend the investment tax credit that deals
with renewable energy. When the PTC for wind energy expired at the end
of 2003, the installation of new wind capacity dropped 77 percent in
the next year. A recent analysis by our friends in the wind and solar
industries suggest that we are looking at $19 billion of lost
investment and 116,000 lost job opportunities if we fail to act on the
extension. This will set us back not just in terms of the challenge of
wind and solar energy today, but we are going to lose ground to our
competitors overseas.
I strongly urge that we focus on the need to provide more energy
choices for Americans today. Extending these credits is a way to make a
difference this year. Failure to do so is going to cause unnecessary
disruption, not just in terms of energy, but economically as well.
I would hope that this is one area where we ought to be able to work
together, agree with these responsible provisions, and enact it into
law.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise in support of the Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act. I am enthusiastic about it because it will
cut taxes for millions of middle-income families and grow the U.S.
economy, it will invest in renewable energy technologies to create
high-paying green jobs, it will make us more energy independent, and it
will remove incentives in the Tax Code that encourage shipping jobs and
investments overseas.
I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Charlie Rangel. He has
brought a bill to the floor that makes key investments in our families
and our future. And I thank the gentleman from Washington State, Mr.
McDermott, for his leadership and for yielding me time.
This is how the bill will cut taxes. Here are seven reasons why
everybody in this Congress should vote for this bill. Any one of them
should be enough.
First, it provides 30 million homeowners with property tax relief.
Secondly, it helps 13 million children by expanding the child tax
credit.
[[Page 10264]]
Third, it benefits 11 million families through the State and local
sales tax deduction.
Fourth, it helps 4.5 million families better afford college with
tuition deductions.
Next, it saves 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for
classroom expenses. Imagine now when our teachers go into classrooms
that are not fully equipped. They have to pay for that equipment
themselves. This at least says if you do that, you will get a tax
deduction.
It provides more than 22,000 military families with tax relief under
the earned income tax credit.
And it ensures U.S. competitiveness by expanding the research and
development tax credit.
That is how it cuts taxes. There are seven reasons right there, any
one of which I think is sufficient to vote for this bill.
When it comes to gas prices, Mr. Speaker, as we debate this
legislation American families are paying record prices at the pump.
Yesterday the cost of a barrel of oil passed $129 for the first time in
history. Today I believe it went past $130. This legislation invests in
the future and the ingenuity of the American people to create and
deploy cutting-edge renewable technologies that will reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and this is how it does that.
It strengthens and extends the production tax credit which will spur
the deployment of wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal and
landfill gas.
Next, it transitions biofuel beyond corn by creating a new tax credit
to promote the production of cellulosic biofuels.
Next, it expands and extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax
credit and offers tax incentives for residential, solar, wind and
geothermal technologies. It provides tax incentives for coal
electricity plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide. It
includes incentives to encourage energy efficient products, such as
plug-in hybrid cars and incentives for energy conservation, both in
commercial buildings and residential structures. And it creates a new
category of tax credit bonds to fund local initiatives to promote the
deployment of green technologies.
This is a comprehensive approach, the missing part of the energy bill
that we passed last year because it did not have the tax credits. Now
we do. This industry can take off. We can have private sector
initiatives to grow our economy, create good-paying jobs here at home,
green jobs, and have the green economic revolution that is so important
to our future.
And this is all being done in a fiscally sound way. No new deficit
spending. It is paid for. This forward-looking legislation invests in
renewable energy, creates hundreds of thousands of good-paying green
jobs, spurs American innovation, and cuts taxes, cuts taxes, for
millions of Americans. And it does so, as I mentioned, in a fiscally
responsible way.
To invest in our future, this bill closes loopholes allowing
corporations and executives to avoid paying certain taxes by shipping
jobs and investments overseas. The New Direction Congress thinks we
should focus tax benefits on creating jobs and encouraging investments
here at home.
Despite the strong case for rescinding taxpayer subsidies for big oil
companies making record profits, opposition by the Senate Republicans
to these offsets makes their inclusion untenable for the bill being
debated today. But we will come back to that.
{time} 1500
Today's bill represents a concerted effort to enact a bill into law
promptly, and thus relies on revenue offsets that enjoy strong
bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Rangel and members of the Ways and
Means Committee and Members of our House on both sides of the aisle who
care about an energy future for America that reduces our dependence on
foreign oil. It is a national security issue, it is an economic issue,
it is an environmental and health issue, it is an energy issue, it is a
moral issue for us to preserve God's beautiful creation, this planet,
and to pass it on to the next generation in a responsible way.
I urge my colleagues to support the Renewable Energy and Job Creation
Act.
Mr. McCRERY. May I inquire as to the remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a
letter from the managing director of Credit Suisse that says, ``I am
writing in support of H.R. 6049. We fully support your efforts to use
the revised deferred compensation measure as a revenue raiser.''
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
New York, NY, May 15, 2008.
Chairman Charles Rangel,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rangel: On behalf of Credit Suisse, I am
writing to express our support for H.R. 6049 the Energy and
Tax Extenders Act of 2008. The bill's deferred compensation
provision is of particular interest to us and we very much
appreciate the efforts of you and your staff to ensure that
this measure does not create any unintended consequences.
We are aware that issues have been raised regarding the
need to offset the bill and with the deferred compensation
provision specifically. As you are aware,'we are generally
cautious as it pertains to revenue raisers and always look to
work with the Committee to guard against unintended
consequences. However, in this instance we fully support your
efforts to use the revised deferred compensation measure as a
revenue raiser in H.R. 60491 Given the House rules on pay-go,
we recognize that without offsets the bill is not likely to
be enacted this year, thereby causing a series of tax
provisions to expire which in our opinion would not be a good
overall outcome.
I reiterate our support for the measure and thank you again
for your willingness to work with us on the deferred
compensation provision. I look forward to working with you
again in the future and please let us know if we can be of
any assistance.
Sincerely,
Thomas Prevost,
Managing Director.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and
Congressman Neal for bringing forward this wonderful piece of
legislation, which I proudly support. And I support this bill to
provide incentives for clean domestic renewable energy production. It
will improve our energy security, extend vital tax provisions, and
provide tax relief to parents and teachers, college students,
homeowners, small businesses, and millions of other middle-income
Americans. Closer to home, this legislation is needed to ensure that
Nevada residents, who do not pay a State income tax, will be able to
deduct State and local sales taxes from their Federal income taxes.
Currently, some families who could benefit the most from the $1,000
refund and for a child tax credit actually make too little to qualify.
This bill ensures that more hardworking parents will be able to benefit
from this credit.
The bill extends the investment tax credit for solar energy property
for 6 years, while doubling the annual credit cap for residential
properties to $4,000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has
expired.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. This important provision not only increases clean energy
production, but it will also create new green collar jobs in Nevada.
While I strongly believe the alternative minimum tax should be
eliminated and I remain committed to protecting the 130,000 Nevadans
who will be hit by this tax, this bill is paid for. I recommend
everyone support it.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I listened to the Speaker of the House who spoke so eloquently about
the pain Americans are feeling at the gas pump. She and her party
should know a lot about it. They helped cause it.
Since the Democrats have been in control here for almost a year and a
[[Page 10265]]
half, we have seen prices at the pump go up about $1.50 a gallon. A
barrel of oil is at the highest price we have ever seen. They have
tried to sue their way into lower gas prices. Now they are trying to
tax their way into lower gas prices. Yet they never think about
producing American energy in America.
So now we have the so-called tax extender bills, Mr. Speaker. Well,
isn't that an interesting concept. Why is it that spending is forever
and grows exponentially, and yet tax relief to hardworking middle-
income families is somehow temporary? It just kind of disappears. But
the Speaker of the House tells us that this is somehow fiscally
responsible.
If you read the front page of USA Today 2 days ago, it tells you that
under the Democrats' watch we have an extra $2.7 trillion of unfunded
obligations that are put upon our children.
Apparently the majority leader thinks that is a laughing matter. As
the father of a 6-year-old and the father of a 4-year-old, I don't find
it too funny.
What we have here is we are going to preserve tax relief for some by
increasing taxes for others. Again, what an interesting concept. The
bottom line is the job creation mechanism of America is taxed, taxed
again when people's paychecks are shrinking. This isn't fair.
Now some people say, well, these particular provisions need reform. I
am happy to reform the Tax Code. I have cosponsored the Taxpayer Choice
Act of 2008. I invite my Democrat colleagues to cosponsor it so that we
can present a two-tier flat tax system to the American people. But the
bottom line is Washington is spending too much, and we don't need
another tax increase bill.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman.
This bill continues the new Congress' steadfast commitment to driving
a clean energy revolution in our country and stimulating near-term
growth in our struggling economy.
Gas prices are up around $4 a gallon. Climate change is a clear and
present danger. We need to wean ourselves off of largely imported
foreign sources of fossil fuel. This bill charts that new course, the
right course. It provides critical incentives for accelerated energy
production from wind, geothermal, and hydropower sources. It includes
investment tax credits for solar and fuel cell properties and a number
of other factors.
To give our economy a boost, the legislation extends pro-growth
policies like the R&D tax credit, and cuts taxes for millions of middle
class families through a host of provisions including the expanded
child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, this is a pro-growth, pro-environment,
forward-looking and fully paid for package that helps move our country
in a new direction.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to resist
change. They had a monopoly on power in Washington for 6 years and did
nothing. Now they have become the party of ``no,'' veto, and the status
quo. Let's move in a new direction.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the
Record excerpts of a memo written to Bill Dauster of the Senate Finance
Committee from Ed Kleinbard, Chief of Staff at the Senate Joint
Committee on Taxation.
Conclusion
While we recognize that colorable arguments can be made in
support of the contrary conclusion, we believe that Rule
XLIV's disclosure requirement for limited tax benefits is
applicable to Section 301.
Mr. Speaker, this new majority is all politics all the time.
Now, the Speaker gave seven reasons to vote for this bill. Funny, she
didn't include the tax boondoggle for trial lawyers. That is right, a
tax break for trial lawyers.
The bill allows plaintiffs' trial lawyers to take deductions for the
payment of contingency fees. I ask you, under current economic
conditions, should we be using the Tax Code to give the plaintiffs bar
possible financial incentives to bring more and costlier lawsuits
against American business?
Second, by definition, in the rules of this House this bill contains
earmarks and pork. The restructuring of the New York Liberty Zone tax
credits provide pork, a limited tax benefit of over $1 billion to New
York City.
Pork for powerful Members of Congress. Pork for trial lawyers. Mr.
Speaker, two good reasons to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
This package encourages the innovation and entrepreneurship needed to
advance America's energy independence. It promotes economic growth,
enhances the ability of American businesses to compete internationally,
and provides much needed relief to American families. This proposal
extends the research and development credit that encourages innovation
and creates new green jobs; the higher education expense deduction that
enables Americans to afford to go to college and to be able to compete
in the new technology jobs. And the provisions that are included
encourage renewable energy development and conservation, including a
provision that I championed which incentivizes more energy efficient
commercial buildings.
This is not the first time that we have passed these energy
provisions in this House. Past efforts have been opposed by the
Republicans and by the President both on substance and on how it is
paid for. But this bill passed the committee with a bipartisan vote.
With a strong bipartisan vote today, we can send a strong message
that we are ready for a new energy policy in this country and should be
passed this afternoon with bipartisan effort.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
would reserve the balance of my time to close on our side.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me address the contingency fee
provision that has come up several times.
Mr. McCrery, I agree with you that contingency fee lawyers are a
very, very narrow class of people. They are the only major business in
America that gets paid solely based on how effective they are. If they
earn nothing for their client, they get nothing in the way of
compensation.
Another fact for my friends on the minority: Contingency fee lawyers
are small business owners who run up expenses, like every other small
business in America. Simple tax fairness says they ought to be able to
take the expenses when the expenses occur. That is how we grow
businesses in America, we give people a chance to use the Tax Code to
grow. And if every other business in America can take a deduction for
expenses in the year in which you incur the expense, how dare we single
out one class of small business owners and treat them differently.
This provision is a simple clear matter of tax equity.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time to
close, using the majority leader.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, let me close today by simply saying that we
don't object to the main body of the bill, the extensions of the
expiring provisions of the Tax Code. After all, those were provisions
that we put in the Tax Code when we were in the majority. That is not
the point.
The point is that if we follow the PAYGO rules that require these
existing provisions of law to be paid for if they are extended just
amounts to a built-in tax increase. If we are already bringing in to
the Federal Government more money as a percent of GDP than we
historically have with all these provisions in place, what sense does
it make to raise taxes just to keep them in place? It doesn't make
sense, unless you simply want to raise more revenue
[[Page 10266]]
for the central government in this country, grow the government even
more.
So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to those who have spoken so
eloquently on the merits of the expiring tax provisions, I agree with
that. But to hold to the PAYGO provisions that require the offsets in
this bill would lead us to a huge tax increase over the next 10 years.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader to close the debate.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Again, I want to say how much respect I have for Mr. McCrery. I think
he is one of the most positive Members of this body. I think he has
worked productively with Chairman Rangel, and I have great respect for
my colleague. He will be leaving, and that will be a loss for the
Congress. I wanted to say that before I begin.
Let me say that we have disagreements. However, and on the overall
issue that he raised in closing about paying for this, he is accurate.
Now, some of these extenders even pre-date the time when the
Republicans were in the majority in 1995 and through 2006. But I think
there is consensus on extending them. The difference is, should we pay
for them? There are only a number of options, a few options available
to us. We can pay for them, or our children can pay for them. Somebody
will pay for them. There is not a free lunch.
My view is this supply side economics pretends there is somewhere out
there where the tooth fairy is going to deliver the money. There is not
a tooth fairy. It is the parent who delivers the money under the pillow
when the tooth is lost. But we are the parents, and we need to act as
adults. We need to pay for what we buy. And if what we buy is giving
somebody a tax incentive because we believe that they will do something
good that will advantage our community and our country, then that is
fine. I am supportive of that. But we ought to pay for it, because that
is our decision.
{time} 1515
One of the gentlemen spoke about his two children. I have three
children. I have three grandchildren, and I have one great-
granddaughter. I'm equally concerned. I'm concerned about the $4
trillion in debt that we've added over the last 6-plus years, and now
some $400 billion this year alone. But that is the general philosophy.
The specific philosophy here is we need to be energy independent. We
need to be sure that our policies that we pursue do not continue to
make us hostage to those who have petroleum products.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend Chairman Charlie Rangel and all
of the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on
this very important, farsighted legislation, the Renewable Energy and
Job Creation Act.
This week the American people are paying, on average, $3.79 per
gallon for gasoline. Mr. Hensarling observed that I was laughing when
he said the Democrats have been in charge and look what's happened to
gas prices. I was laughing because the absurdity is rejected by the
American public, that somehow policies that we've adopted over the last
year, when the President vetoes anything he doesn't want, has affected
those gasoline prices to me is patently absurd and clearly rejected by
the American people. It was, I thought then and think now, a laughable
proposition to make.
Motorists are paying $4 per gallon, more than $2.50 per gallon more
than they were paying when the current administration took office.
To show you the difference, when Bill Clinton was President from 1993
to 2001, gas prices rose from $1.06 to $1.46, 40 cents, or a nickel a
year, a nickel a year during those 8 years. During this President's
administration, prices are rising a nickel a week.
There is no doubt that this explosion in gasoline prices is squeezing
hardworking families who live in every one of our districts who also
are coping with the rising costs of food and groceries, health care and
education.
This legislation is not a panacea to those immediate concerns. Would
that we had one. But it does represent an important step in our
continuing effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Among other things, the bill will establish a new tax credit of $1.01
per gallon for cellulosic biofuel production from now through 2015, so
that we can rely on the Middle West and perhaps other parts of our
country, rather than the Middle East. It will extend this $1 per gallon
biodiesel tax credit, and makes it available to all potential sources
of diesel that can be made without petroleum. And it allows jet fuel
produced from biomass to qualify for the credit as well.
Furthermore, this legislation will reduce our dependence on imported
fuel for our electricity sector by extending and expanding tax
incentive for sources of renewable energy including wind, solar and
biomass.
It also will encourage the use of plug-in hybrid cars and provide
incentives for energy conservation in residential homes, commercial
buildings and appliances; all of which, I think, the American public
applauds.
Additionally, this bill will help create hundreds of thousands of
``green jobs.'' It will spur American innovation and business
investment, which will strengthen our economy today and in the future.
And it will provide tax relief for millions of Americans, expanding the
child tax credit for the families of 13 million children, helping 4.5
million families better afford college through a tuition deduction, and
saving 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom
expenses, so when they buy something for their classroom, like a
business expense, they'll be able to deduct it.
Now, many on the Republican side object to this bill because the
Democratic majority, in keeping with our commitment to fiscal
responsibility and pay as you go budget rules, insists that this
legislation be paid for and not add to the national debt.
That's a fundamental difference between our two sides. One believes
that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves. Mr. Bernanke doesn't believe
that, Mr. Greenspan doesn't believe that, but our Republican colleagues
clearly believe it, and they've pursued that policy, which has, as I
said, put us over $3 trillion in additional debt over the last 82
months.
To them I simply say: It is long past time that the Members here
insist that our Nation pay for the things it buys. To not do so takes
the discipline out of the democratic process, because if we can simply
charge that which we buy, there will be no discipline on the part of
the electorate to say no, we don't want to be taxed to buy that. And I
guarantee the system would stop buying it. But if there is no
discipline, if we're not paying, my grandchildren will not be able to
vote and exercise that discipline.
History, I suggest to my colleagues, is littered with the stories of
formerly great nations that began their demise through fiscal
profligacy. It is within our power to ensure that the United States of
America is never added to that list.
The method by which Chairman Rangel and the committee have paid for
the cost of this bill is laudable. Important. This legislation closes
loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by
shipping jobs and investments overseas. And because our obligations do
not stop, average working Americans, therefore, must pay more if the
wealthiest among us who can seek tax havens do not pay their fair
share.
This legislation is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, this is an
excellent bill that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
protect our environment, create thousands of jobs and strengthen our
economy, and provide tax relief to millions of hardworking Americans.
I commend Mr. Rangel, Mr. McDermott, the members of the committee,
and I commend Mr. McCrery for his responsible stewardship as the
ranking member and his working to try to bring consensus. We have not
reached it in this instance, but I do commend him for his efforts.
[[Page 10267]]
And I urge my colleagues, support this important legislation which
moves us towards energy independence and a fair and equitable tax
system.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 6049, The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. This is a
fiscally responsible and progressive piece of legislation. H.R. 6049
responds to the concerns we consistently hear from our constituents
about energy prices, property taxes and the needs of our brave men and
women in uniform.
H.R. 6049 recognizes that the need for renewable energy is greater
than ever. Oil companies reap higher and higher profits but consumers
are struggling to keep up the rising cost of gas. Our dependence on
foreign oil continues to pose a serious risk to our national security.
Further, we know our current energy sources are contributing heavily to
global climate change. I applaud H.R. 6049 for including a $20 billion
dollar investment in renewable energy research and production to find
environmentally sound alternate energy supplies.
In my home state of Indiana, families are struggling to keep up with
sky-high property taxes. My colleague Baron Hill has worked to bring
about relief for homeowners and introduced H.R. 3726 the Property Tax
Relief Act of 2007, a bill I am proud cosponsor. I was pleased to note
the bill we are discussing today provides an additional standard
deduction for State and local real property taxes paid for 2008, a
provision very similar to H.R. 3726.
This bill also provides assistance to our veterans and active duty
service men and women. H.R. 6049 includes provisions allowing members
of the armed services to include combat pay in order to qualify for the
earned income tax credit and rules to allow veterans to qualify for
mortgage revenue bonds. These programs offer critical assistance to
lower income individuals.
H.R. 6049 helps American families by extending the deduction for
qualified tuition and related education expenses and increasing the
eligibility for the refundable child tax credit for 2008. Further, it
rejects President Bush's attempts to cut down Medicare and Medicaid
benefits, the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and several key law
enforcement programs. Having spent my career in law enforcement, I was
especially concerned to hear that the President proposed eliminating
the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants and cops. I am pleased
this bill continues to support these important programs.
I commend Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this important bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this
legislation that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy
and for American families while not adding to the federal deficit.
As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I
am especially pleased to see the House take action on needed tax
credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) in
particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a
renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market
certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before
the current credit expires at the end of 2008.
I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a 3-year
extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned
that it only provides a 1-year extension for wind energy. Wind is a
very promising renewable energy source and a 1-year extension will not
be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to
extend the PTC for more than 1 year.
The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar
energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines through the end of
2014. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in
expanding these renewable energy sources across the country.
The bill also authorizes $2 billion of new clean renewable energy
bonds (CREBS) for public power providers and electric cooperatives.
This is a critical tool, especially for Colorado's rural co-ops and
municipal utilities.
This bill would also benefit families who want to invest in renewable
energy. It would extend the credit for residential solar property for 6
years and increase the annual credit cap, currently capped at $2,000,
to $4,000. And it would expand the definition to include residential
small wind equipment and geothermal heat pumps so that consumers have
more options.
Rising gas prices are forcing many Coloradans to dip into their
savings just to make ends meet. This bill will help families reduce
their fuel bills by providing $3000 in tax credits toward the purchase
of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address
long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown
fuels, including creating a new production tax credit for cellulosic
biofuels besides ethanol, as well as an extension of the tax credits
for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
I supported the energy bill that the House passed last year which
included many of these important tax provisions, as well as the
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 that the House
passed earlier this year. But, for the lack of support in the Senate,
these provisions have not yet made it to the President's desk to be
signed into law.
And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by
extending the research and development tax credit for 1 year. While
again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than 1
year, this is a step in the right direction.
To help with the hard economic times that Coloradans are facing, this
bill includes several other key tax credits, including expanding the
child tax credit for some of our neediest families, allowing teachers
to take a deduction for purchasing classroom supplies out of their own
pockets, and providing additional support for families paying for
college education.
I hope today we can move this bill forward and promote positive
change that will benefit our families and rural communities, save
consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and
energy security.
I strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this
needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so
that we may move it to the President's desk.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 6049, Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. I would
like to thank my colleague the Chairman of Ways and Means, Congressman
Charles Rangel for bringing this energy legislation forward .
The bill extends dozens of expired or expiring tax provisions, and
extends and creates new energy-related tax incentives for the
production of wind and other renewable energy and for homeowners'
investment in solar and fuel cell equipment.
Texas has invested in the production of wind and is looking to come
up with more ways to aid us in energy conservation and harnessing our
natural resources in a way that does not damage the environment.
There is an undeniable consensus on the importance of America
achieving energy independence in the 21st century. It is critical that
we terminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil, the majority of
which are located in regions of the world which are unstable and in
most circumstances, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no
issue more essential to our economic and national security than energy
independence.
By investing in renewable energy and increasing access to potential
sources of energy, I believe we can be partners with responsible
members of America's energy producing community in our collective goal
of reaching energy independence.
Houston, Texas, is the energy capital of the world, for the past 12
years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the
Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety
of Energy Braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players
ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of
sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and
alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West
Africa.
My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action to all of
the sectors that comprise the American and international energy
industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a
whole.
Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing
more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices,
and greater economic and national security. Bringing together
thoughtful yet distinct voices to engage each other on the issue of
energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative
dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry
to the extent that we as a nation achieve energy security and energy
independence.
Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the
world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for
many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. The energy industry
in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in
devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will aid Americans as we seek to wean
ourselves from our foreign oil dependence. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 6049.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this common
sense piece of legislation offered by my dear friend, Representative
[[Page 10268]]
Charlie Rangel, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. If
enacted, his bill will marshal the tremendous economic power of our
Nation's physical and human capital and direct it towards solving the
twin challenges of energy dependence and global warming. Through $20
billion investment in renewable energy tax incentives, carbon
mitigation provisions, transportation efficiency tax credits, and
energy efficiency incentives, this bill offers a comprehensive strategy
that empowers both individual citizens and the private sector.
The bill empowers everyday Americans by providing tax credits to
green citizens who add energy-efficient improvements to their homes and
businesses and purchase plug-in electric cars. The bill helps the
private sector push the limits of research and development by
encouraging the building of carbon capture and sequestration
demonstration projects. The bill also creates incentives for the energy
production sector to invest in nontraditional cutting edge energy
production methods. I am particularly excited that this bill will, for
the first time, incentivize investment in technologies that will
harness the power of the waves and tides found in our Nation's Great
Lakes and oceans.
I am also proud of this body's recent efforts to address the global
climate change crisis. This bill is a logical and important next step
toward this end. For too long, our country lagged behind the rest of
the industrialized world in recognizing and taking action to address
the climate change crisis. Global warming endangers all of us, but
threatens to have the most devastating impact on the poorest and the
most vulnerable. By encouraging our Nation's citizens and businesses to
act in a carbon-conscious way, we protect not only ourselves, but show
compassion for our brothers and sisters around the world. At a time
when global public opinion regarding our Nation is at an all-time low,
the important positive impact this bill will have on our country's
public diplomacy efforts should not be downplayed.
Lastly, I believe that this bill serves as a powerful example of the
tax policy differences between the 110th Congress and past Congresses.
Instead of using the tax code to promote inequality and corporate
largess, the American people now know that the tax code can be used to
promote personal responsibility, national security, compassion, and
global sustainability. I am proud to join with my colleagues here today
as we continue to establish a progressive tax policy for the 21st
century.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6049, Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. This bill provides tax relief for
millions of Americans while spurring business investment and innovation
in renewable energy.
I am pleased to note that H.R. 6049 will benefit the families of
millions of children by expanding the child tax credit to those earning
$8,500 a year. This bill will also provide tax relief by extending the
State and local sales tax deduction, provide property tax relief for 30
million homeowners, and help families afford college with the tuition
deduction. As the only former school superintendent serving in
Congress, I am especially pleased to note that this bill is supported
by the National Education Association because it includes an extension
of the tax deduction for educators who help supply their classrooms,
and an extension of the Quality Zone Academy Bonds school modernization
program that helps school districts address renovation and repair
needs.
H.R. 6049 includes important tax relief provisions for businesses as
well as individuals and families. This bill extends the Research and
Development Tax Credit for over 27,000 businesses, the 15-year
straight-line cost recovery for leasehold improvements and qualified
restaurant improvements, and the tax credit for the environmental
remediation of brownfields areas. We need to strengthen our economy by
helping to spur American innovation with investment in American
businesses.
Developing alternative energy sources and ending our dependence on
foreign oil is one of the most critical challenges facing our nation.
H.R. 6049 includes several provisions that will spur innovation in this
area such as an extension of investment and production tax credits for
solar energy, wind energy, and energy derived from biomass, geothermal,
hydropower, and solid waste. In addition, H.R. 6049 includes incentives
that promote the production of homegrown renewable fuels, like
biodiesel, for the installation of more E-85 pumps, and a $3,000 tax
credit for the purchase of fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles.
These provisions will create and preserve thousands of ``green collar
jobs'' as well as provide relief for Americans who continue to see gas
prices rise to historic records across the country.
I support the passage of H.R. 6049, Renewable Energy and Job Creation
Act of 2008, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, for nearly eight years, this
Administration's backwards energy policy has lined the pockets of oil
company executives while hurting American consumers, the economy, and
the planet. This bill encourages production of clean alternative fuels
and renewable energy while creating jobs. It transfers Oil Executive
Power to Blue Collar Renewable Power.
Last week the House passed legislation on the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve to give hurting Americans an immediate break at the pump. But
the energy crisis demands long term action, breaking our addiction to
oil and transitioning our economy to clean renewable energy sources
once and for all.
Last week immediate relief with SPR, this week we put our nation on a
path to a clean renewable future.
President Bush and Senate Republicans have been given opportunity
after opportunity to pass tax credit extensions for renewable energy.
They have sided with Big Oil each time, even as oil prices have blown
past $100 a barrel and many Americans are now paying $4 per gallon for
gas. This morning oil reached $130 a barrel.
This bill finds alternative revenue raisers which I do support. But
let's not forget what this Administration fought to protect. ExxonMobil
had $40 billion in profit last year. Do you know how the largest
corporate profit in history was used in 2007?
It repurchased $31.8 billion worth of stock.
It increased compensation for top executives by 170 percent since
2001.
It financed a $100 million public relations campaign to try to
deflect blame from angry consumers.
It invested around $10 million in renewable energy alternatives. That
is less than one tenth of one percent of their profits.
These and other findings are being released today in a report by the
Select Committee that analyzes where Big Oil's profits are going. Let's
hope President Bush's love for the oil industry doesn't extend to hedge
fund managers and corporate CEOs using offshore tax havens.
Today, because of this Administration's misguided policies, the
renewable energy industry has its back against the wall. Solar and wind
companies are delaying projects because of investment uncertainty.
There is no more time to delay.
The other side likes to tell America that wind and solar and biomass
cannot be real solutions to our energy challenge. They tell us that
drilling in our most pristine natural areas and building nuclear power
plants with taxpayer support are the only things that can solve this
problem.
No. Last year the United States installed 5,244 megawatts of wind
power, 30 percent of all the new capacity installed nationwide in 2007.
Solar photovoltaic installations in the U.S. also grew an incredible 80
percent. This was the start of the renewable energy revolution.
Last week, the Department of Energy produced a study detailing what
it would take for America to meet 20 percent of its electricity needs
with wind power in 2030. The way the industry has grown over the last
decade--about 30 percent a year--we can meet this target ahead of time.
This bill also provides valuable incentives for carbon capture and
sequestration, plug-in hybrid cars, and renewable fuels. The American
entrepreneur will rise to the energy and climate challenge if Congress
puts the right incentives in place.
Passing H.R. 6049 will give renewable energy the support it needs,
drive economic expansion and job growth in this country and put America
on a greener path towards realizing long-term solutions to global
warming. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6049, the
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. As a member of the Ways
& Means Committee, I am proud to have helped craft this very important
tax bill that will give much needed relief to millions of American
taxpayers while also moving forward on our agenda to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and stimulate our economy.
Unfortunately, over the last several years we have seen tax bills
pushed through Congress and signed by the President under the guise of
``relief' for the middle class and the poorest in the country. I think
many in this chamber have now come to recognize that many of these
measures presented as tax relief for the middle class were in fact more
tax breaks for the richest in society. Today we finally have before us
a bill that will give real relief to millions of taxpayers, many of
whom are hardworking middle class families struggling with rising
energy and food bills.
[[Page 10269]]
First, H.R. 6049 addresses the need for more clean energy production
in our country by providing long-term extensions of the renewable
energy production tax credit and the solar energy and fuel cell
investment tax credit, while amending them to increase accessibility.
These long-term extensions will give utilities and investors the
predictability they need to move forward with new generation projects
in the years to come. The bill also addresses energy use and carbon
emissions by extending multiple energy-efficient credits for homes and
businesses, creating incentives for carbon capture and sequestration
demonstration projects, and calling for carbon audit of the tax code to
determine what policies are encouraging wasteful energy use and
unnecessary carbon emissions. The Act also addresses our dependence on
dirty foreign oil by extending and improving tax credits for the
production of cellulosic biofuels and plug-in electric vehicles.
Most exciting of all, however, are the innovative qualified energy
conservation bonds this bill creates. The qualified energy conservation
bonds give states and local governments the resources needed to invest
in green programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Giving
local authorities the power to choose what green energies to implement
in their backyard is good public policy, because I know the energy
needs of western Wisconsin are vastly different than those of Queens.
By not picking the winners and losers in Washington, we are allowing
exciting technological changes, advancements, and the market--not
Congress--drive the green energy revolution.
In the area of tax relief, H.R. 6049 extends several popular expiring
tax provisions. In particular, the bill will provide property tax
relief for 30 million Americans, help for more than 12 million children
through an expanded child tax credit, tax relief for more than 11
million families through state and local sales tax deduction, help for
more than 4.5 million families to cover the cost of education through
the tuition deduction, and relief for more than 3.5 million teachers
who will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses for their classrooms.
Finally, this bill is fully offset and complies with pay-go rules.
Under the leadership of Chairman Rangel and Speaker Pelosi, we are
demonstrating that we can provide tax relief without sending the debt
on to our children. After years of fiscal recklessness--deficit-
financed tax cuts for the wealthy and out-of-control government
spending--this bill sets a precedent of fiscally responsible tax
reform.
Again, .Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this sensible and fair tax
bill before us today. Offering some tax relief in uncertain economic
times and meeting the challenge of climate change with innovative and
constructive solutions are exactly the issues this Congress should be
focused on. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6049.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act and congratulate Speaker Pelosi
and Chairman Rangel for putting forward legislation that will make a
real difference for American families.
H.R. 6049 extends and expands tax incentives for renewable energy and
encourages energy efficiency. At a time when families are facing
record-breaking gas prices, this bill will help to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil and lower energy bills. These tax incentives
will also create and preserve good-paying ``green collar'' jobs such as
those in the wind and solar industries.
The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act also furthers our nation's
innovation efforts by extending the research and development tax credit
for 27,000 companies. It is critical for our global competitiveness
that we encourage and support entrepeneurs and new ideas.
For families struggling to make ends meet in this difficult economy,
this bill provides 30 million homeowners with property tax relief,
expands the child tax credit, and extends the state and local sales tax
deduction. It also helps students afford higher education with a
tuition deduction and provides our teachers a tax deduction for
classroom expenses. Finally, this legislation provides additional tax
relief under the Earned Income Tax Credit for 22,000 troops in combat.
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that our children and grandchildren are not
burdened with additional debt, this bill is fully paid for by closing a
tax loophole for offshore companies and delaying a tax break for U.S.
multinational companies. These changes not only ensure this bill
follows pay-go, they also improve the fairness of our tax code.
H.R. 6049 is critical to our long term energy policy and to family
budgets. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
bill.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, this past fall, this House passed
H.R. 3997, which included a provision to permanently extend the
military eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC). However,
we are back here again while our men and women in uniform still wait
for a permanent solution. We provided a 1-year extension, but our
military deserve a permanent fix.
Without action today, hundreds of thousands of troops could find
their EITC eligibility slashed. It would be a tax borne solely by our
soldiers and our military families. We call it a soldier tax.
Our military continues to serve our country with honor and
distinction. The last thing we need is for our soldiers and their
families to have to worry about paying higher taxes next year. That is
why I authored the Tax Relief for Armed Combat Families Act for 2007.
It will permanently end the soldier tax. Our military families should
not have to worry from year to year what funds are going to be
available to take care of their families.
I thank Chairman Rangel for working my language into today's
legislation, and I call on my colleagues to pass this important
legislation. Let's permanently end the soldier tax.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. This legislation will
extend and expand tax incentives for renewable energy and create
hundreds of thousands of green jobs, along with providing critical tax
relief to families as they face rising gas and food costs.
With soaring gas prices hitting our constituents hard in the pocket
book, we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while protecting
the environment. H.R. 6049 does this by increasing production of
renewable fuels and renewable electricity, and encouraging greater
energy efficiency. Specifically, the 6-year extension of the investment
tax credit for solar energy, the 3-year extension of the production tax
credit for biomass-, geothermal-, and hydropower-generated energy, and
the 1-year extension of the production tax credit for energy derived
from wind set us on the right path for decreasing our dependence on
foreign oil.
This bill would also provide critical tax relief to families at a
time when they are paying more at the pump and in the grocery store.
When passed, this bill would provide this relief through the ability to
deduct State and local sales tax, tuition and other education expenses
including the out-of-pocket expenses by teachers, the deduction of
property taxes for non-itemizers and probably most importantly, relief
for more than 12 million children through an expansion of the
refundable child taxpayers earning $8,500 a year. These are commonsense
items directed towards those who are in the most need of relief. It is
no secret that the cost of living is increasing and wages are stagnant.
These provisions will help the average American family receive some
relief.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Renewable Energy and Job
Creation Act and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of
H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008.
I have always believed that as a Nation we should wean ourselves from
our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in the energy of the future.
After several attempts, the House of Representatives has finally
found an appropriate balance to promote the technologies of tomorrow in
a way that will benefit our long term energy security.
This legislation has much to be proud of.
It will extend the tax credit for producing electricity from
renewable sources of energy which will enable Texas--the Nation's
number one producer of wind energy--to continue adding clean energy and
jobs to our economy.
It also extends the investment tax credits for solar energy, fuel
cells, and energy-efficient appliances for the home, and it creates new
tax credits for plug-in hybrid vehicles and renewable energy tax-credit
bonds.
And after learning of the unintended consequences that corn-based
ethanol has had on our environment and global food prices, this
legislation rightly includes a six-cent reduction in the ethanol tax
credit and creates a new credit for the production of cellulosic
biofuels.
Aside from energy provisions, I am pleased this legislation includes
several sections extending benefits for members of the military and
veterans.
Extension of the rules allowing military personnel to treat their
combat pay as earned income, extending specialized mortgage bond rules
for veterans, as well as a provision allowing reservists to make
penalty free withdrawals from the retirement accounts if called to
active duty for 180 days or more will benefit those who have served our
country, and provide added financial options for their families if
necessary.
[[Page 10270]]
Finally, H.R. 6069 will extend the state and local sales tax
deduction which assists taxpayers in Texas who do not pay a state
income tax, and it provides almost $10 billion of additional tax relief
for individuals through an expansion of the refundable child tax credit
and a new standard deduction for property taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman
Rangel, for producing a bill that enhances our energy and job security
and that has support from both sides of the aisle.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6049,
the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. This important legislation
would provide critical tax relief to families coping with increased
costs of gas and food, while continuing our national investment in
renewable energy and conservation programs to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes
$3 billion in energy conservation bonds to help States reduce
greenhouse gases.
Protecting the environment for future generations is a collective
responsibility. We must each do our part to leave a better, cleaner
world than the one we inherited. That has been a guiding principle for
my efforts in Congress, and it is our mutual obligation.
Recently, both Rockland County and Westchester County in my district
in New York have joined communities nationwide moving to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil by passing plastic bag recycling laws.
We know that the production of plastic bags and film plastic
worldwide uses over 12 million barrels of oil per year, accounting for
more than 4 percent of the world's total oil production. We also know
the disturbing truth that in the United States we use more than 1
bilIion plastic bags a year, and less than 1 percent of those bags are
recycled. Even more troubling, the Environmental Protection Agency
estimates the average plastic bag takes up to 1,000 years to
decompose--in the process breaking down into smaller pieces that
contaminate our soil and waterways and cause injury, illness or death
to marine and animal life.
I recently introduced H. Res. 1161 to honor retailers and those State
and local governments throughout the nation that have taken similar
proactive steps to tackle this critical energy and environmental
challenge. In the coming weeks I will also be introducing legislation
to establish a national program promoting plastic bag recycling at our
retail outlets, and I look forward to working with the members of the
Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to tackle
this issue.
Thank you again to Chairman Rangel for your leadership on these
critically important issues, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
6049.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 6049, the Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act. This legislation will extend and expand
important tax incentives for renewable energy, will spur business
investments, cut taxes for millions of Americans, and retain and create
hundreds of thousands of green jobs.
The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act includes $18 billion in tax
incentives to spur green jobs and energy independence. I am pleased
that it includes a six-year extension of the investment tax credit for
solar energy, and between one and three year extensions of the
production tax credit for addition sources of renewable energy. It also
provides tax credits of $3,000 or more to purchase fuel-efficient,
plug-in hybrid vehicles and includes important incentives for energy
conservation in commercial buildings, residential structures, and
energy efficient appliance. This bill also includes $3 billion in tax
credit bonds for State and local governments to make energy
conservation investments in public infrastructure, investments which I
hope can be targeted toward low-income communities and our schools.
Without these energy tax extensions, our nation could lose an
additional 116,000 jobs this year. with additional long-term
repercussions in the growth of an industry which has enormous potential
at in an otherwise uncertain economic time.
This legislation also invests $37 billion to spur job creation and
cut taxes for millions of middle-class families. It will help the
families of more than 13 million children by expanding the child tax
credit to those earning $8,500 a year, saves 3.4 million teachers money
by providing a deduction for classroom expenses, extends tax relief
under the Earned Income Tax Credit to 22,000 American servicemen and
woman in combat, and would help more than 4.5 million families better
afford college.
At a time when families are struggling in a slowing economy and oil
prices reached yet another record on the world market, this bill is a
much needed step toward securing our energy and economic future. I hope
my colleagues and the President will join us in enacting this important
legislation which makes needed investments without increasing the
national debt.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, oil prices have now reached $135 a barrel
and regular gasoline averages $3.81 per gallon around the country.
Meanwhile, the big five oil companies are reaping the rewards of record
prices. The major oil companies recorded more than $123 billion in
profits in 2007. However, rather than reinvesting the bulk of those
profits to advance a strategy that vigorously incorporates renewable
energy alternatives, oil company profits have been spent largely to
fund huge increases in stock buybacks designed to prop up stock prices.
ExxonMobil--the largest of the major oil companies--recorded $40
billion in profit in 2007 and spent $31.8 billion repurchasing shares
of its own stock. Meanwhile ExxonMobil only spent $10 million investing
in renewable energy in 2007.
The oil industry in the past 5 years has undertaken one of the
largest stock buybacks in the history of capitalism. Spending on share
buybacks for the five major oil companies went from under $10 billion a
year in 2003 to nearly $60 billion a year in 2007. Big Oil has
increased spending on stock repurchases from $7.9 billion in 2003 to
$57.7 billion in 2007--an increase of 630 percent. The increase in Big
Oil's spending on stock buybacks in recent years has been so
remarkable, and indeed unprecedented, that Exxon spent more
repurchasing its own shares in the first quarter of 2008--$8 billion--
than all the major oil companies spent on stock buybacks for all of
2003.
The money being invested by Big Oil in all types of production still
pales in comparison to the value being returned to shareholders in the
form of dividends and stock buy-backs. While ExxonMobil has increased
capital investment in drilling and exploration from $12 billion in 2003
to $15.7 billion in 2007--an increase of roughly 30 percent--ExxonMobil
has increased spending on stock buybacks from $5.9 billion in 2003 to
$31.8 billion in 2007--a five-fold increase.
The legislation that I am introducing today, the Renewable Investment
and Consumer Protection Act or 2008, would impose a 10 percent fee on
all stock buyback transactions entered into by major oil companies and
redirect that revenue to fund investment in renewable energy and low-
income energy assistance programs. If the oil companies refuse to help
American families by finding alternatives to $4 gasoline, then it is
time for Congress to ensure that we invest in renewable technologies
such as solar, wind and biofuels that can help American consumers, our
economy and our planet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1212, 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. Mc Crery
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Mc CRERY. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCrery moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6049 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House promptly with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief 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; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.
TITLE I--ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable
personal credits.
[[Page 10271]]
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption
amount.
TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Election to include combat pay as earned income for purposes
of the earned income credit.
Sec. 202. Distributions from retirement plans to individuals called to
active duty.
Sec. 203. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 204. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 205. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers.
Sec. 206. Modification of mortgage revenue bonds for veterans.
Sec. 207. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for
charitable purposes.
Sec. 208. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment
companies.
Sec. 209. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of
nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 210. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 211. Qualified conservation contributions.
TITLE III--BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Extension of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign
corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for
qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant
improvements.
Sec. 306. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
Sec. 307. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions
of book inventory.
Sec. 308. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to
controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 309. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable
contributions of property.
Sec. 310. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 311. Parity in the application of certain limits to mental health
benefits.
Sec. 312. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 313. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 314. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety
equipment.
Sec. 315. Extension of expensing rules for qualified film and
television productions.
Sec. 316. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to
domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 317. Extension of qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 318. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 319. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian
reservation.
Sec. 320. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 321. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track
facility.
Sec. 322. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 323. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane
Katrina employees.
Sec. 324. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 325. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
TITLE IV--EXTENSIONS OF ENERGY PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Extension of credit for energy efficient appliances.
Sec. 402. Extension of credit for nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 403. Extension of credit for residential energy efficient
property.
Sec. 404. Extension of renewable electricity, refined coal, and Indian
coal production credit.
Sec. 405. Extension of new energy efficient home credit.
Sec. 406. Extension of energy credit.
Sec. 407. Extension and modification of credit for clean renewable
energy bonds.
Sec. 408. Extension of energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.
Sec. 409. Extension of special rule to implement FERC and State
electric restructuring policy.
Sec. 410. Suspension of taxable income limit with respect to marginal
production.
Sec. 411. Extension of credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
TITLE V--TAX ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 501. Permanent authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 502. Permanent disclosures of certain tax return information.
Sec. 503. Disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
TITLE I--ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR
NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) (relating
to special rule for taxable years 2000 through 2007) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or 2007'' and inserting ``2007, or
2008'', and
(2) by striking ``2007'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) (relating
to exemption amount) is amended--
(1) by striking ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2007)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``($69,950 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)'',
and
(2) by striking ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2007)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting
``($46,200 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL TAX PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. ELECTION TO INCLUDE COMBAT PAY AS EARNED INCOME FOR
PURPOSES OF THE EARNED INCOME CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subclause (II) of section 32(c)(2)(B)(vi)
(defining earned income) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 6428,
as amended by the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, is amended
to read as follows:
``(4) Earned income.--The term `earned income' has the
meaning set forth in section 32(c)(2) except that such term
shall not include net earnings from self-employment which are
not taken into account in computing taxable income.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 202. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS TO INDIVIDUALS
CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 72(t)(2)(G) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to individuals ordered or called to active duty
on or after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 203. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 204. DEDUCTION OF QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED
EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 205. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2)
(relating to certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers) is amended by striking ``or 2007'' and
inserting ``2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 206. MODIFICATION OF MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR
VETERANS.
(a) Qualified Mortgage Bonds Used To Finance Residences for
Veterans Without Regard to First-Time Homebuyer
Requirement.--Subparagraph (D) of section 143(d)(2) (relating
to exceptions) is amended by inserting ``and after the date
of the enactment of the Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders
Tax Relief Act of 2008 and before January 1, 2014'' after
``January 1, 2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 207. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 208. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS OF REGULATED
INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) Interest-Related Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(1) (defining
[[Page 10272]]
interest-related dividend) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Short-Term Capital Gain Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(2) (defining short-term capital gain dividend)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to dividends with respect to taxable years of
regulated investment companies beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 209. STOCK IN RIC FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ESTATES OF
NONRESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) (relating
to stock in a RIC) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to decedents dying after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 210. QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2008.
SEC. 211. QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Clause (vi) of section 170(b)(1)(E)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Contributions by Corporate Farmers and Ranchers.--
Clause (iii) of section 170(b)(2)(B) (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
TITLE III--BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) Extension.--Subparagraph (B) of section 41(h)(1) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
45C(b)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 302. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
Subparagraph (D) of section 45D(f)(1) (relating to national
limitation on amount of investments designated) is amended by
striking ``and 2008'' and inserting ``2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013''.
SEC. 303. SUBPART F EXCEPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.
(a) Exempt Insurance Income.--Paragraph (10) of section
953(e) (relating to application) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January
1, 2014'', and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Exception to Treatment as Foreign Personal Holding
Company Income.--Paragraph (9) of section 954(h) (relating to
application) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2014''.
SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF LOOK-THRU RULE FOR RELATED CONTROLLED
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 954(c)(6)
(relating to application) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2007, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which such taxable
years of foreign corporations end.
SEC. 305. EXTENSION OF 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY
FOR QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AND
QUALIFIED RESTAURANT IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Clauses (iv) and (v) of section
168(e)(3)(E) (relating to 15-year property) are each amended
by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1,
2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 306. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FOOD INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 307. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS OF BOOK INVENTORY.
(a) Extension.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--Clause (iii) of section
170(e)(3)(D) (relating to certification by donee) is amended
by inserting ``of books'' after ``to any contribution''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 308. MODIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS
TO CONTROLLING EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 512(b)(13)(E)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments received or accrued after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 309. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATIONS MAKING
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of section 1367(a)(2)
(relating to decreases in basis) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 310. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX
TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United
States after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 311. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO
MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 9812 (relating
to application of section) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2),
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``, and before the date of the enactment of the
Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act of 2008,
and'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) after December 31, 2013.''.
(b) Amendment to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.--Section 712(f) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a(f)) is amended
by inserting ``, and before the date of the enactment of the
Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act of 2008,
and after December 31, 2013'' after ``December 31, 2007''.
(c) Amendment to the Public Health Service Act.--Section
2705(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-
5(f)) is amended by inserting ``, and before the date of the
enactment of the Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax
Relief Act of 2008, and after December 31, 2013'' after
``December 31, 2007''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to benefits for services furnished on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 312. EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT FOR
AMERICAN SAMOA.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 119 of division
A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended--
(1) by striking ``first two taxable years'' and inserting
``first 8 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 313. EXTENSION OF MINE RESCUE TEAM TRAINING CREDIT.
Section 45N(e) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
SEC. 314. EXTENSION OF ELECTION TO EXPENSE ADVANCED MINE
SAFETY EQUIPMENT.
Section 179E(g) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
SEC. 315. EXTENSION OF EXPENSING RULES FOR QUALIFIED FILM AND
TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.
Section 181(f) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
SEC. 316. DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 199(d)(8)
(relating to termination) is amended--
(1) by striking ``first 2 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 8 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 317. EXTENSION OF QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1397E(e) is
amended by striking ``and 2007'' and inserting ``2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 318. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A (relating to
termination) is amended by
[[Page 10273]]
striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 319. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON
INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) (relating
to termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007''
and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 320. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G (relating to
application of section) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred during taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 321. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS
RACING TRACK FACILITY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15)
(relating to termination) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Application of paragraph.--Such term shall apply to
property placed in service after the date of the enactment of
the Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act of
2008 and before January 1, 2014.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 322. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 323. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR
HURRICANE KATRINA EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 201(b) of the
Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 is amended by
striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``8-year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals hired after August 27, 2007.
SEC. 324. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED COMPUTER
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made during taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 325. TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) Designation of Zone.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 1400 is amended
by striking ``2007'' both places it appears and inserting
``2013''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2007.
(b) Tax-Exempt Economic Development Bonds.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 1400A is amended
by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2013''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2007.
(c) Zero Percent Capital Gains Rate.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 1400B is amended
by striking ``2008'' each place it appears and inserting
``2014''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1400B(e)(2) is amended--
(i) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018'', and
(ii) by striking ``2012'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2018''.
(B) Section 1400B(g)(2) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
(C) Section 1400F(d) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) Extension.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to acquisitions after December 31, 2007.
(B) Conforming amendments.--The amendments made by
paragraph (2) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(d) First-Time Homebuyer Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (i) of section 1400C is amended
by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to property purchased after December 31, 2007.
TITLE IV--EXTENSIONS OF ENERGY PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT
APPLIANCES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 45M (relating to
applicable amount) is amended by striking ``calendar year
2006 or 2007'' each place it appears in paragraphs (1)(A)(i),
(1)(B)(i), (1)(C)(ii)(I), and (1)(C)(iii)(I), and inserting
``calendar year 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or
2013''.
(b) Restart of Credit Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section
45M(e) (relating to aggregate credit amount allowed) is
amended by inserting ``beginning after December 31, 2007''
after ``for all prior taxable years''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 402. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 25C(g) (relating to termination)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 403. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENT PROPERTY.
Section 25D(g) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
SEC. 404. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY, REFINED COAL,
AND INDIAN COAL PRODUCTION CREDIT.
Section 45(d) (relating to qualified facilities) is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2009'' each place it appears in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and
(10) and inserting ``January 1, 2014''.
SEC. 405. EXTENSION OF NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME CREDIT.
Subsection (g) of section 45L (relating to termination) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
SEC. 406. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT.
(a) Solar Energy Property.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and
(3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) (relating to energy credit) are
each amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting
``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Fuel Cell Property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(1) (relating to qualified fuel cell property) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(c) Microturbine Property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(2) (relating to qualified microturbine property) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
SEC. 407. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR CLEAN
RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
(a) Extension.--Section 54(m) (relating to termination) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Increase in National Limitation.--Section 54(f)
(relating to limitation on amount of bonds designated) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$1,200,000,000'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``$1,600,000,000'', and
(2) by striking ``$750,000,000'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``$1,000,000,000''.
(c) Modification of Ratable Principal Amortization
Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (5) of section 54(l) is amended
to read as follows:
``(5) Ratable principal amortization required.--A bond
shall not be treated as a clean renewable energy bond unless
it is part of an issue which provides for an equal amount of
principal to be paid by the qualified issuer during each 12-
month period that the issue is outstanding (other than the
first 12-month period).''.
(2) Technical amendment.--The third sentence of section
54(e)(2) is amended by striking ``subsection (l)(6)'' and
inserting ``subsection (l)(5)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 408. EXTENSION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
DEDUCTION.
Section 179D(h) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
SEC. 409. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL RULE TO IMPLEMENT FERC AND
STATE ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING POLICY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1,
2014''.
(b) Extension of Period for Transfer of Operational Control
Authorized by FERC.--Clause (ii) of section 451(i)(4)(B) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``the
date which is 4 years after the close of the taxable year in
which the transaction occurs''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to transactions after December 31, 2007.
(2) Transfers of operational control.--The amendment made
by subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in section
909 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
SEC. 410. SUSPENSION OF TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO
MARGINAL PRODUCTION.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 613A(c)(6) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 411. EXTENSION OF CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE
DIESEL.
(a) In General.--Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and
6427(e)(5)(B) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
[[Page 10274]]
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel produced, and sold or used, after
December 31, 2008.
TITLE V--TAX ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 501. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 7608(c) (relating to rules
relating to undercover operations) is amended by striking
paragraph (6).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to operations conducted after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 502. PERMANENT DISCLOSURES OF CERTAIN TAX RETURN
INFORMATION.
(a) Disclosures To Facilitate Combined Employment Tax
Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Section 6103(d)(5) (relating to disclosure
for combined employment tax reporting) is amended--
(A) by striking ``reporting'' in the heading thereof and
all that follows through ``The Secretary'' in subparagraph
(A) and inserting ``reporting.--The Secretary'', and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to disclosures after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Disclosures Relating to Certain Programs Administered
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.--
(1) In general.--Section 6103(l)(7)(D) (relating to
programs to which rule applies) is amended by striking the
last sentence.
(2) Technical amendment.--Section 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii)(III)
is amended by striking ``sections 1710(a)(1)(I), 1710(a)(2),
1710(b), and 1712(a)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``sections
1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b)''.
SEC. 503. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Disclosure of Return Information to Apprise Appropriate
Officials of Terrorist Activities.--Clause (iv) of section
6103(i)(3)(C) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31,
2013''.
(b) Disclosure Upon Request of Information Relating to
Terrorist Activities.--Subparagraph (E) of section 6103(i)(7)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to disclosures after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Mr. McCRERY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward motion that
offers Members of this House a simple choice. Are you in favor of long-
term extensions of these expiring tax provisions and extending the all-
important AMT patch, without raising taxes?
As we have discussed at length here today, the majority's bill
unwisely adheres to their ill-advised PAYGO rules. Thus, they have once
again found themselves boxed in a corner, scouring the Tax Code for
ways to fuel their agenda. Whether that agenda involves additional
spending, new tax incentives, or even just extensions of the low-tax
policies that Republicans originally enacted during our time in the
majority, the Democrat solution seems to always be the same: tax, tax,
tax.
Today's bill is no different. While there is virtually no
disagreement in this House that the expiring tax reductions contained
in the underlying legislation need to be renewed, the two parties seem
to have a major disagreement about whether revenue-raisers should be
necessary to pay for them. The majority's bill represents a clear
choice in favor of higher taxes. Our motion to recommit, on the other
hand, represents a clear choice in favor of extending current tax
relief, without offsetting tax increases.
Unlike the bill brought forward today by the majority, Mr. Speaker,
which contains $55.5 billion in revenue-raisers, our motion contains
no--repeat, no--tax increases. Democrats were wrong to propose these
sorts of offsetting tax hikes last year, and they're wrong again today.
If they stick with their misguided PAYGO rules, they'll be wrong again
in 2010 as well, when a huge number of critically important tax
policies, ranging from the expanded $1,000 child credit to the lower
rates on dividends and capital gains and lower individual rates will
expire. And the majority's PAYGO logic will then require more than a
$3.5 trillion tax increase simply to maintain current law. But that's
where PAYGO will take us.
This motion to recommit offers us a different path, Mr. Speaker. Not
only does our motion reject the majority's tax hikes, it extends the
bill's positive provisions for considerably longer than the underlying
bill does. Indeed, our motion extends the package of expiring
provisions, including all the expiring energy tax provisions, through
2013.
So if you support the deduction for State and local sales taxes,
here's your chance to extend it for 6 years, not just 1. If you support
the research and development tax credit, here's your chance to extend
it for 6 years, not just 1.
In short, if you want to extend all of the important low-tax policies
that expired last year--as well as the energy extenders that are set to
expire just months from now--on a long-term basis, here's your chance.
This motion also gives Members the opportunity to extend one final
crucial provision that has gone completely unaddressed by the majority:
the AMT patch. As we've highlighted throughout today's debate, the
majority's legislation is deafeningly silent on the urgently needed AMT
patch. Their bill's failure to patch the AMT for 2008 means that more
than 25 million middle class individuals and families are in line for a
$61.5 billion tax hike next April, an average tax increase for those
families of more than $2,400 per taxpayer.
Our motion does what everyone knows must be done. It patches the AMT
for 2008, and it does so early in the year to help ensure that we avoid
a repeat performance of the legislative meltdown engineered by the
majority last year, which prevented the 2007 patch from being enacted
until the day after Christmas. We need to patch the AMT and we need to
patch it now. This motion gives us that opportunity.
I will close, Mr. Speaker, with just a word about process. I suspect
that we'll hear from our friends on the other side that this motion
will kill the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that you
can't kill a bill that's already dead. This bill is dead on arrival in
the other body, Mr. Speaker. Forty-one Senators signed a letter last
month pledging to oppose tax bills that contain revenue-raising
offsets.
On the very same day that our committee, the Ways and Means
Committee, reported out this bill last week, our colleagues across the
Capitol passed a motion on the Senate floor instructing Senate
conferees on the budget resolution to reject the House's plan to raise
$110 billion in taxes in order to pay for the extension of expiring
provisions, including the AMT patch.
And, Mr. Speaker, even if this legislation somehow got through the
Senate, the President has indicated he would veto the bill.
You can't kill a bill that's already dead, Mr. Speaker. So let's use
this motion to recommit to revive this bill, send it back to committee
so that we can do our work in a bipartisan way, and get a bill passed
and to the President that he will sign.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outrageous opposition to the
motion to recommit that has been offered to this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. One, the outrage concerns my love for the Congress and
the Constitution. And to think that this great House and the committee
which I'm proud to chair would even have to consider what they're
thinking, if they're thinking at all on the other side, to decide what
we're going to legislate outrages me.
{time} 1530
Two, whatever the President says he's going to do or may do--we
understand that he's addicted to veto, but that shouldn't stop us from
doing the right thing.
And why do I think basically it's the right thing? Well, it has to be
if you
[[Page 10275]]
want to extend it for 5 years. So your vote on this, after the motion
to recommit dies on this floor, is going to be very interesting as to
if you want it for 5, why wouldn't you want to extend it at least for
1?
Lastly, I wish that I had some time to share with my friend, whom
I've enjoyed working with as the ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee, to ask him how much money do you think they have in Japan
and China to loan us? There must be some limit to their capacity.
Our bill costs about $125 billion altogether, I think. $54 billion
for the energy provisions as well as for this. So I assume that you
want to add another $200 billion to that. And I don't remember you
using the creative language that you used when you and the Senate--that
you and the other body, whatever they call themselves--decided that you
don't have to pay for the alternative minimum tax.
First of all, if I understood that, I'll take it home to my wife and
explain that there are ways that you can lose revenue and not renew it
and still not change your lifestyle. And if it works at home, I will
come here, and at least for the next Congress, ask Mr. McCrery, if he
can't stay over there, come on our side and explain how, if the
President puts in the budget that we should be expecting money from
these 25 million hostages that shouldn't have to pay the tax, that we
don't have to make up for the money.
So I assume that you have now extended this to cover the extenders.
And I hope really that you would stick around a little while so that
you will be able to work with me and the next President, not to explain
why in the last 8 years we haven't reformed this doggone tax system.
Most of this stuff shouldn't be in the Tax Code. You know it and I know
it. And the things that should be in the Tax Code should be made
permanent. The stuff that shouldn't be in there should be taken out.
So in 8 years, the President is now talking about vetoing. Why didn't
he take enough time to say, Let's straighten out the code, let's
attempt to balance the budget, let's do the right thing for energy and
whatever has to be in an extender that expires, help us to get rid of
it without being charged with raising taxes. Any extender that expires,
we would say that it raises taxes.
I know and Secretary Paulson knows, and we'll be hearing more from
him probably after he leaves the administration, that this House has
the responsibility of having a Tax Code that is simple, that is
economically inspiring, and is something that can be confident and
things shouldn't expire. If they expire, they shouldn't be in there in
the first place. If it is good, it should stay in the Tax Code so
there's reliability.
And if you're going to say that we're not going to get revenues as a
result of extending this, we say for 1 year, we will raise the money,
we will do it the right way, we will be proud of it, and in a small way
attempt to stop this deficit.
But be kind to the people in Japan. Be kind to the people in China.
They can't forever support everything that the Republicans want.
We're going to have to make sacrifices if we want to make changes. So
this war is one against ignorance and not having the research and
development. It's one in trying to have research and development for
our corporations, but, more importantly, to find alternatives to this
addiction that we have.
So you have been there for 8 years. Please don't try to change the
things in 10 minutes here. Join with us. Let's work together in a
bipartisan way, and let's mark down this day that is a day that House
Democrats and Republicans said, stop the addiction, move to the
alternatives, and dedicate ourselves to having a reformed Tax Code, if
not this year then certainly next year.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
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. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
H.R. 6049 and motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 1771 and H.R. 4841.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201,
nays 220, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 343]
YEAS--201
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
[[Page 10276]]
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Coble
Costa
Crenshaw
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Tiahrt
Wexler
Wynn
{time} 1600
Messrs. BERRY, KUCINICH, SPRATT, BUTTERFIELD, KLEIN of Florida,
ALTMIRE, DICKS, LANGEVIN, OLVER, GEORGE MILLER of California,
RUPPERSBERGER, REYES and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. McKEON, WALSH of New York, BURGESS, McINTYRE and MITCHELL
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 343, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HERGER. 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 263,
noes 160, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 344]
AYES--263
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
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 (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
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
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--160
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)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Turner
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Tiahrt
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1608
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 344, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
CRANE CONSERVATION ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The unfinished business is the
question on suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1771, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1771, as amended.
The question was taken.
[[Page 10277]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. 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 304,
noes 118, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 345]
AYES--304
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--118
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Scalise
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiberi
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Coble
Crenshaw
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Tiahrt
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1616
Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 345, I was attending the
graduation ceremony at the United States Coast Guard Academy. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS SETTLEMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 4841, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4841, 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.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 6041
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 6041.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
PERMISSION TO CONSIDER AS ADOPTED MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the motions to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be
considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Monday,
May 19, 2008:
House Concurrent Resolution 300, Senate Joint Resolution 17, House
Concurrent Resolution 325, House Resolution 1074, H.R. 3323, House
Concurrent Resolution 334, House Resolution 1152, House Resolution
1132, House Resolution 1153, House Resolution 1026, H.R. 752, and H.R.
5787.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, applicable titles are
amended.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, sundry motions to
reconsider are laid on the table.
There was no objection.
[[Page 10278]]
____________________
FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-115)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto
message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2419, the ``Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.''
For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress
pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has
failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income,
this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues
subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than
$20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase.
It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade
negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American
farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of
government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be
good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates
that fundamental commitment.
In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible
farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and
move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill
before me today fails to achieve these important goals.
At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than
$28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to
subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up
to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is
irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops,
subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort
markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill
eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.
Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee
that could cost billions of dollars more than advertised. This is on
top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion
over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to
prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.
This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill-
considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 2419 provides: $175 million
to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-
acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the
noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382
million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the
expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no
place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated
with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds
for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.
The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable
provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food
aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The
bill does not include the requested authority to buy food in the
developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill
raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined
above, I must veto H.R. 2419, and I urge the Congress to extend current
law for a year or more.
I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm
bill not to receive the President's signature, but my action today is
not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on
principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control
of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower
wrote in his veto message, ``Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I
would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and
good for farmers and the nation.'' For similar reasons, I am vetoing
the bill before me today.
George W. Bush.
The White House, May 21, 2008.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill
will be printed as a House document.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1630
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and
further would yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and ask unanimous consent that he may control that
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I ask my colleagues to listen up here because this has been a very
difficult bill and there has been numerous problems that have developed
every day for the last year-and-a-half. I guess it's appropriate that
there would be a problem that would be developing today as well.
When the enrolling clerk enrolled the bill to send to the White
House, somehow or another they inadvertently, or however it happened,
did not include the trade title, title III of the bill, in the official
documents that went to the White House. So the President vetoed the
bill minus the trade title, title III.
The trade title includes the food aid programs, including McGovern-
Dole; it includes the market promotion; the export credit program; the
market access program, and it also includes the soft wood lumber
certification program.
So we are moving ahead to override the veto that the President has
done. But we have this issue that one of the titles is missing from the
bill. We have a process after we get through the override to try to
deal with that issue.
Mr. Speaker, the President's veto message said that when the
commodity prices are high, it's irresponsible to increase government
subsidy rates for 15 crops and subsidize additional crops and so forth.
We made some adjustments in some of the price supports to try to
rebalance the system from what it has been in the past. These were
modest, and I think it's questionable that you would use this as one of
the items in the veto override.
As I have worked through this process, I spent more time than anybody
else talking to the White House, trying to avoid the situation we are
in today, where the President has vetoed this bill. I don't know that
anybody else has spent more time trying to work with the White House.
The problem has been that they keep changing the objections to the
bill, and 2 or 3 weeks ago, when we tried to engage the White House to
be able to work with them in a negotiating fashion to take into
consideration some of their concerns, their position was that, well,
they had these demands but they really weren't in a position or willing
to negotiate with us.
So we have come to this day where the White House has vetoed this
bill, which I regret. But we have a good bill that I think all of us
should be proud of. It maintains a safety net for farmers, by and
large, in the way it was done in the 2002 bill. We did make some
changes; reductions in crop insurance and some other areas. We included
a new disaster program that is paid for, that would be an unusual
situation because generally the disaster ad hocs that we have done have
not been paid for. So we think we have made some improvements in area.
We responded to the concern of people around the country of food
costs and the way food prices have gone up by taking all of the new
money, the whole $10 billion of new money that was put into the bill
over and above the baseline and we have put that into nutrition
programs. $10.364 billion in this bill was put into nutrition programs.
That includes modernizing and
[[Page 10279]]
indexing food stamps; $1.25 billion for food shelves and food banks
that are basically bare right now; and also a new fruit and vegetable
snack program for folks in low-income schools so that our kids can have
healthy snacks and have an alternative to some of the things that they
are now snacking on. We also made some changes, as I said, in the
commodity area so that we could improve substantially conservation. We
have added a specialty crop title to this bill, and we have also added
an energy title to this bill.
So we have responded to what we heard when we traveled the country
under the leadership of then-Chairman Goodlatte. We have responded to
all of the areas. We think we have a bill that is responsible, that is
paid for without tax increases, that puts the priorities where they
need to be in this country.
I would ask my colleagues to follow up on the good vote that we had
last Wednesday on the bill when it was on the floor and give us the
majority today to override the President's veto.
With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, of the 30 minutes yielded to me by the
gentleman from Minnesota, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona so that he may manage that time
as a part of the debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill, and the words before
me say ``the very same farm bill passed by this body last week with an
overwhelming bipartisan majority.'' Now we find that it is not quite
the same farm bill because of an enrolling error or something in the
transmission of the document. I certainly hope that we can find an
amicable way to make sure that the trade title of this bill, which is
an important title, is included in the final product, whether as a part
of a joint resolution or by some other means of adopting that.
This bill was a collaborative effort, crafted by Members on both
sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, and is historic in
the amount and degree of reform. It costs less than either the House or
the Senate bills and ensures Americans will continue to enjoy access to
a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply.
Last week, the 318 bipartisan votes in favor of the farm bill sent a
clear message: This is a good bill and there is significant support for
it. Despite what has been opined by editorial boards throughout the
country, this bill contains significant reforms and is the most reform-
minded farm bill this body has ever considered. Granted, everyone
didn't get exactly what they wanted. We all gave a little and we all
got a little. But such is the nature of compromise. Given the diverse
nature of a farm bill, it is extremely difficult to manage the scope of
needs within the farm bill, and even more difficult when you're not
given the resources needed to do so.
This bill contains many of the ideas suggested in the
administration's farm bill proposal. Like the administration, we
utilized the adjusted gross income to reduce payments to the wealthiest
farmers and ranchers. We eliminated the three-entity rule, created a
revenue-base countercyclical program, modified and modernized the dairy
program, modified planting flexibility rules, increased the efficiency
of the crop insurance program, directed funding to the development of
cellulosic ethanol, included programs for beginning and socially
disadvantaged farmers, and created beneficial interest for the loan
programs.
Variations of these measures were included in the administration's
proposal. We may not have gone as far as the administration wanted, but
these reforms help make this a better bill than the House or Senate
farm bills.
It is important to point out that despite comments to the contrary,
this bill is completely paid for, without any tax increases. While many
throughout the world are feeling the effects of increased food prices,
U.S. consumers have been largely insulated from spikes in food prices
because many years ago we established a food production system that
maintains an adequate supply in good times and in bad. Because it is
produced domestically, we know it to be safe and affordable.
This bill ensures that Americans will continue to enjoy the access to
a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting this farm bill, which moved substantially in
the direction that the President asked for, but which did not meet all
of his goals. I think we have increased the support for this bill
substantially by almost 90 Members in the process, and I urge my
colleagues to support this override vote.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we do need a farm bill. It's planting season throughout
the country. The farm economy is crucial in regards to the health and
well-being of our Nation. It's an integral part of the economic well-
being of my home State in Wisconsin. But I always believed that we
should have the right type of farm bill, not the wrong type of farm
bill before us today.
Merely because the President is not the most popular person in the
country today doesn't mean that he is always wrong. I think he is right
when he is sending back a veto message telling the Congress today: We
can do better. We should do better. We ought not be giving large
taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record commodity
prices.
The modicum of reform that is being hailed under the commodity title
is barely the illusion of reform. In fact, if you look at the three
main subsidy programs that still exist and still continue on this farm
bill, the loan deficiency program, the countercyclical, and the direct
payment all of them are going up, in practice. They are increasing the
loan rates under the LDP program, increasing the target price under the
countercyclical, they are expanding the maximum amount allotted under
the direct payments from $40,000 to $45,000.
While the gentleman from Virginia is correct that there is a little
tightening of the adjusted gross payment limit to farm entities, it
doesn't come anywhere close to the type of reform that is eminently
justifiable in light of farm income and debt to asset ratio.
By the time you allow two entities on the same farm to qualify for
these same direct payments, you can have a farm entity with an adjusted
gross income of up to $2.5 million still receiving taxpayer subsidies.
What does this mean in regards to production agriculture? It means that
based on last year's schedule F tax returns that farmers file to report
their income, these so-called reforms under the commodity title might
affect two-tenths of 1 percent of producers around the country today.
Hardly the type of reform that we should be talking about. Hardly the
justification that we can take home and tell the taxpayers that we are
doing right by them.
I believed from the beginning that we can still have a farm bill that
maintains an important safety net for family farmers throughout the
country in case the bottom drops out, in case they run into hard times.
And we know how cyclical farm economy is. We can find savings under
those subsidy programs through the reforms that are justifiable to have
a strong conservation title coming out of this, strong nutrition title,
research and marketing for specialty crops, and having a strong rural
economic development program, not to mention the energy title that was
alluded to.
In talking to one of my colleagues earlier this afternoon, he says he
is reminded by an old Clint Eastwood film: The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly. There's plenty of good that you can point to in this farm bill.
Certainly the increase in nutrition is justifiable in light of rising
costs and eligibility and to combat hunger that is rising throughout
the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has
expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
[[Page 10280]]
The bad is the fact that last year when we passed the farm bill out,
they were talking about an increase of $5.7 billion of funding under
the conservation title. Today, coming back, it's less than a $4 billion
increase.
Why is this important? It's important because the increase of
commodity prices, there's great pressure on sensitive lands to bring
them back into production, and that means it's going to affect wildlife
habitat, highly erodible land with sediment and nutrient flows flowing
off and contaminating our water and drinking supply. We are seeing
already that CRP enrollment is dropping because farmers are choosing to
take that out of CRP and putting it back into production. Instead of
recognizing market forces and having the strongest possible
conservation title, that was one area where they went for further
savings in order to protect these large subsidies.
Finally, the Washington Post reported in an article today, Farm Bill
Subsidy Costs May Rise. Billions More Could Be Paid Through Little-
Notice Provisions. This is that new revenue-based countercyclical
program the gentleman from Virginia just alluded to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has
again expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
This is based on a 2-year rolling average of commodity prices rather
than 5 years that the administration was proposing. But even 2 years
ago, commodity prices were at or near record lows. What this means is
that it will take very little for the prices to drop today for this
program to get triggered and for tens of billions of dollars to be
flowing out in further subsidy programs because of the way this is
structured, and that is wrong. And we should be more honest, not only
with the Members of this Congress of how it's going to work, but with
the American taxpayer.
One farm economist called this new ACRE program, and I quote,
``lucrative beyond expectations.'' That is what has been created. So
instead of reform, we are heading in the opposite direction.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling).
{time} 1645
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference
report, but I certainly want to thank our ranking member for taking a
product and making it better.
Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the front page of USA Today talks about
taxpayers' bill leaps by billions, long-term financial obligations of
the Federal Government grew by $2.5 trillion last year, unfunded
obligations that will be placed on our children and grandchildren.
Today we have a conference report for a farm bill that is going to
cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion. Now, I have heard
it said, well, this bill is paid for. Yes, it is paid for. It is paid
for by the auto mechanics in Garland, Texas. It is paid for by the guy
that sweeps out the grocery store in Mineola. It is paid for by the guy
who works at the counter at the hardware store in Canton, Texas, that I
have the privilege of representing.
We have a farm program that in many ways is at odds with the poster
child that is represented. Two-thirds of this bill isn't about
agriculture. It is about nutritional programs, welfare programs, food
stamps. And of the money that is going to agricultural production, two-
thirds of agricultural production is not getting anything. And yet some
of this money is going, as we know, to millionaires, at a time when
middle-income family paychecks are shrinking.
Now, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that is somewhat
personal to me. I grew up working on a family farm. I come from three
generations of farmers. No one sought a subsidy from their neighbor. No
one gave a subsidy. You can make a living in agriculture without asking
your neighbor to give you a check.
We do need a farm bill, but what needs to be in a farm bill is tax
relief, to prevent taxes from being increased. We need an end to the
death tax. We need to increase trade opportunities. We could be
exporting good Texas beef right now to Colombia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
Mr. HENSARLING. We do need a farm bill, but not a farm bill that
forces our neighbors to subsidize this program. Ninety-six percent of
the world lives outside of America, and already we had the Democrat
majority deny a trade agreement that could have opened up great trading
opportunities for agriculture in America.
We need a respect for private property rights. We need regulatory
relief. When we have an EPA out of control trying to somehow deign
animal manure as part of the Superfund hazardous waste site, you know
that something is out of control.
So our agricultural producers need help. But this is the wrong way to
do it. Again, at a time of shrinking paychecks, at a time when $2.5
trillion of burden have been added to our children and grandchildren,
why are we keeping alive a relic of the New Deal, not to mention at a
time of the highest food inflation in almost two decades. And why we
would take money away from some people to hand to millionaires is
beyond me.
We ought to defeat this conference report.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished vice chairman of our committee and also the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research, Mr.
Holden from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill and I rise to
congratulate and commend the chairman and ranking member of the
committee, and really all the members of the committee and the staff.
I think this is a shining example of how this House should work its
will. This bill is bipartisan. This bill has been worked together by
both sides of the aisle as we traveled around the country and listened
to what producers had to say and people concerned about conservation
and every title of this bill as we put this together.
This bill reflects the diversity that we have in agriculture all
across this country. No one can say they got 100 percent of everything
they wanted in this bill, but every region of the country has benefited
from this legislation.
As was spoken about previously in the commodity title, there has been
significant reform in the commodity title. Could we have gone further?
Maybe we could have, but we would have lost votes in other regions of
the country. In the conservation title, there is an additional $4
billion in investment in conservation that will be beneficial all
across the country.
In my short time here, Mr. Speaker, the one point I would like to
make is that throughout this whole day we have been hearing an awful
lot of people talking about the need for the Congress to do more for
energy independence. This bill reflects that with the energy title.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a subcommittee ranking
member.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for
not only the time, but for his leadership, as well as the chairman, Mr.
Peterson, on this important farm bill.
I heard some of my colleagues say this is not a good farm bill. But,
do you know what? Seventy-five percent of our colleagues here in the
House thought this was a good farm bill. Eighty-five percent of the
Members in the Senate thought this was a good farm bill. And do you
know why they thought it was a good farm bill? It is because they
understand how important American agriculture is to our country.
One of the things that we were listening to today, oil prices again
set another record price today. Why? Because there is not enough oil to
meet the demand for our country. There is a mentality going around here
that maybe if
[[Page 10281]]
we just don't produce things, things will just show up. But if we are
going to eat feed and clothe America, we have to produce something. If
you are going to get something, you have to produce something.
So what this farm bill does is it allows American agriculture to
continue to do what it has been doing for hundreds of years, and that
is produce the highest quality, the most affordable food and fiber in
the world. It is the reason today demand for a lot of American
agricultural products are at an all-time high. With the cheap dollar,
you can buy the best for a lot less.
What is important here is that we have a future for American
agriculture, because we don't want to be in the same shape we are
today. We had to wake up today and figure out who is going to supply
energy for America. The American people don't want us to have to wake
up tomorrow and say who will feed us, who will clothe us, because we
have let American agriculture die in America.
So this bill, the reason I support it and why I encourage my
colleagues to override this presidential veto, is because it is a good
bill. Yes, it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. A lot of
bipartisan work and bicameral work was done to bring this product to
the floor, and that is the reason it is important now that we do what
American agriculture has been waiting several months for us to do, is
finally put in place permanent policy for American agriculture. I
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, if this represents reform, I would hate to see what the
Ag Committee calls a boondoggle. We have here not just a continuation
of all the programs we had before, some even at higher levels; we have
a new program.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned, there was an article in
the Washington Post today detailing the ACRE program. The ACRE program
is a new program where subsidies will kick in at far higher levels than
they ever have before. In fact, just take corn, for example. If corn
hits $3.50 a bushel, where it was just a year or two ago, at historic
highs for the time, if we hit that again, that will trigger subsidies
totaling about $10 billion a year, in addition to everything we are
doing today.
That is not reform. That is far away from reform, and how somebody
can stand up today and with a straight face say this is reform, I just
don't know.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
on behalf of Mr. Peterson.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Boswell), the chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry
Subcommittee.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the stand-in
chairman for the moment. Mr. Goodlatte, thank you again for your hard
work, and everybody else who participate in this process. I thank my
ranking member helping on the Livestock Committee. Robin, I appreciate
your work as well.
We do have a new livestock title. It is the first time ever. It
offers producers much-needed protection and ensures fairness and
transparency within the marketplace. And as I look at the support we
gave when we passed the bill, the 318 here, 81 in the other body, and
then the 1,000 organizations that have sent letters supporting us to do
this override, why, it seems to me like there is a lot of need to get
this done.
So, in short, I think we have got the best we can do under the
circumstances. It is bipartisan. I appreciate the efforts, and I
recommend the override.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from Arizona about the ACRE program. This is a program
that was requested by the administration. It was modified by the House
and modified by the Senate. Now we hear the administration doesn't like
the way it is projected to work, but, quite frankly, it scores by the
Congressional Budget Office as saving the taxpayers of our country $400
million.
Why? Because the fact of the matter is it is not expected to have a
very high enrollment, and in order to have what the gentleman describe
take place, we would have to have a dramatic drop in corn prices. But
the administration just signed into law in December a bill that
mandates ever-increasing costs of amounts of production for ethanol,
and the fact of the matter is we are not going to see those conditions.
It is a theoretical possibility, a practical unlikely condition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, for more than 3 years I have worked with
Southwest Louisiana farmers to deliver a sound and responsible farm
bill, and I am glad to report that our hard work has finally paid off
with a bipartisan bill.
This important piece of legislation is a victory for farmers in rural
communities throughout Louisiana and around the country, but the
President failed to see it this way. And I understand his arguments.
This is not a perfect bill, but it does make important reforms with a
hard cap on farm and nutrition programs.
The hard work of farmers and ranchers across our region maintains
America's food security. Ensuring that we have access to safe quality
food is critical, and American farmers lead the way. This farm bill
supports American farmers going through tough times, while not
burdening them during good times. This farm bill supports the
agriculture community and ensures its competitiveness in the years to
come.
This has been a long process, but in the end we were able to come
together and support a bipartisan, responsible farm bill. I am proud of
the work we accomplished on this farm bill, and I am grateful to all of
those in Southwest Louisiana who helped me with it.
I urge my colleagues to override the veto and vote for American
farmers.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, for 1
minute.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Peterson and
Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work. They worked together in a
bipartisan manner. I rise today in support of the veto override of H.R.
2419.
Last week, this legislation was passed on a bipartisan vote in this
House and by an overwhelming vote in the other body, and I am saddened
that this President, a man who represents himself as a friend of
agriculture, would choose to turn his back on our Nation's farmers and
rural America by vetoing one of the most important pieces of
agricultural legislation that this Congress has passed this year.
Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we have a stable farm policy in this
Nation, not just for farmers, but for every child that participates in
a nutrition program, for every food bank, for every school lunch
program. This legislation affects every citizen in this country.
This is a bill that we can be proud of, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my
colleagues to vote to override this veto. It is a vote for America.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Virginia
responding to my statement about the ACRE program and the potential for
taxpayer liability here.
The reason that the CBO scored it as a net savings is because of what
is called baseline shopping. It was done with this bill, where we
actually reached back and chose to base the bill on a baseline, a prior
year baseline, when corn prices, when wheat prices, when soybean prices
weren't as high. Had we used this year's baseline or this year's
projections, then we would see that next year, for example, when this
kicks in, that you could have corn at $4.25 a bushel still receiving
subsidies. Now, keep in mind $4.25 is higher than corn has ever been,
until this year.
[[Page 10282]]
{time} 1700
And so dropping back to just what it was before this year will
trigger subsidies that would not have been triggered before. That is
not reform. That is not reform at all. That is soaking the taxpayers.
That is farming the taxpayers rather than the land.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman. I applaud your hard work on
this farm bill and Chairman Peterson's.
Every day we are reminded of our problems that we are facing because
we rely on foreign nations for our energy supply. I believe that
Americans ought to think about what happened with the pet food issue
and realize that we need a safe and reliable food supply.
As we worked on this farm bill, we had demands from the Speaker of
the House, we had demands from the White House. Serving in the minority
there was the tension between my party and the other party in the
Senate and the House. We had a great deal of difficulties to overcome.
But I am proud today to say that I stand in support of this farm bill
and urge my colleagues to join me in overriding this veto.
This farm bill increases funding to food banks that are seeing more
and more people come in, needy people. It increases that funding by
$1.2 billion. The farm bill increases dollars for conservation programs
that are so important in this Nation. The farm bill increases
investment in alternative energy research. Americans want to lessen our
dependence on foreign oil.
When we are concerned at this time in our Nation about childhood
obesity and diabetes, this farm bill increases dollars for nutrition
programs for school children around the Nation. And, most importantly,
it provides a safety net for rural America.
As we look at what Americans spend on their food supply, 10 percent
of their disposable income, we are truly blessed in this world to have
this safe, abundant food supply, and we want this to continue. Despite
what has been said on this House floor today, this farm bill contains
real reform, and we are moving in the right direction with that.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to join me as we override this
President's veto.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of
reform and conservation in this farm bill, the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate
his leadership. It is a pleasure to be here with my friend from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) as we are going back to review some of what we said was
going to happen when we were here a week ago. Remember, we talked about
what would happen: As the light of day shone on this bill, there would
be more things that would come up that would give pause.
Now I have had my differences with President Bush from time to time,
but he did the right thing by putting the spotlight on this bill by
vetoing it. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, we found out just
in the course of the last couple of days something that wasn't clearly
explained on the floor, how as the high commodity prices declined to
more typical levels, we could end up paying an additional $16 billion
of subsidy.
This bill simply is a missed opportunity for real reform. It is not
turning your back on America's farmers and ranchers to suggest, as some
of us have and the President argues, that you are limited to $200,000 a
year of income before subsidies kick in. At a time of record commodity
food prices, farm couples earning up to $1.5 million a year with an
additional up to $1 million outside income simply don't need to receive
government subsidy. Meanwhile, the majority of farmers who don't grow
the commodity crops are going to continue to get little or no money.
It hurts a State like mine, the State of Oregon, where we are proud
of what our ranchers and farmers do. But the majority of them get
nothing under the existing farm bill and they will continue to get
nothing under this proposal.
It troubles me that we are creating a new permanent disaster program,
an additional layer of subsidy, which doesn't make sense. If a region
is representing repeat disaster year after year after year, it is not
really a disaster. It is growing the wrong things using the wrong
techniques in the wrong places. We shouldn't turn it into an
entitlement.
This bill is a missed opportunity for conservation. The National
Wildlife Federation has called the farm bill a disaster for wildlife
that ``fans the flames of global warming.'' The funding for
conservation is not nearly enough to meet the needs. They are not met
today. The majority will not be met under this bill. And, sadly, it
makes cuts to important programs like the conservation reserve program,
the wetland reserve program. I am disappointed that it also guts the
sod saver program that protects important prairie and grassland
habitat.
I mentioned last time that I was on the floor that this bill
nullifies a Federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of
Information Act that ordered USDA to make public data that is critical
to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of these
subsidies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has
expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Nobody talked about this on the floor, drawing the
veil over this information. It was inserted without public hearings,
without debate, and will have serious oversight ramifications on how we
manage these programs. Nineteen congressional districts in the country
will get about half the money. They make out grandly. But States with
strong agricultural communities will continue to be shortchanged.
Congress could have done a better job for the environment, could have
concentrated the help on the majority of farmers who are shortchanged
to help them and their communities. Small- and medium-sized farmers
will continue to be squeezed away. If we pass this bill, do not sustain
the veto, we will continue to have large operations squeezing out small
and medium-sized operations. If we can't muster reform with these
record high prices, we probably never will. The President was right to
veto it. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support him and go back and do it right.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished chairman of the Department Operations,
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, who did such an
outstanding job in putting the much needed nutrition title together,
Mr. Baca from California.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opinion in support
of this farm bill, and urge my colleagues to override the President's
veto.
Simply put, this farm bill strengthens our nutrition, conservation,
energy independence, and specialty crops like no other farm bill has
ever done before, and it is done in a bipartisan fashion.
People asked us to come here in Washington, D.C. and vote on a
bipartisan, not to vote on a partisan. We have come together on a
bipartisan.
This currently will feed 38 million Americans who do not have enough
to eat. We are in an economic recession. People have lost their jobs.
People have lost their homes because of foreclosures. Gas prices are
going up. This farm bill will put food on the table for over 13 million
American families. We have raised the food stamp benefit index to keep
up with the lost of living. These changes will help an additional 10
million Americans, including poor working families, the elderly, the
disabled, and the veterans.
We expanded the USDA snack programs under the fresh fruits and
vegetables. We will leave no child behind. This will feed them.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and override the President.
This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill.
[[Page 10283]]
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman.
Earlier someone indicated that we had thousands of supporters,
thousands of groups supporting this bill. Who couldn't get thousands of
groups to support a bill by paying them $300 billion in subsidies?
We are poised here to pass a record-breaking, multibillion-dollar,
Soviet-style central planning farm bill that takes tax dollars away
from the general public and doles them out to a few people in the
agricultural industry, some of them millionaires, at a time when crop
prices are breaking records.
What benefit do the American taxpayers get from this bill? They get
higher taxes for the privilege of paying artificially higher food
prices. What a deal.
Mr. Speaker, when oil prices hit record highs, the Democrat
leadership and some Republicans called for the imposition of a windfall
profits tax on greedy evil oil producers. But when crop prices
skyrocket, the same leadership comes to the floor of this House to hand
out billions of dollars in subsidies to big agricultural businesses and
wealthy hobby farmers.
America, what a country. Washington, what a disaster.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Subcommittee who brought us the
first specialty crop title to the farm bill, Mr. Cardoza of California.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, I thank him for his
leadership and for allowing us to write this bill the way we did,
including specialty crops. And I rise in strong support of overriding
the misguided Presidential veto on the Farm, Conservation and Energy
Act.
It is extremely unfortunate that we must go through this exercise on
legislation that is so critically important to both rural and urban
America alike. The bipartisan conference report on the 2008 farm bill
represents the blood, sweat, and tears of many members on this floor
and of the other body of the agriculture committees and including
myself. We have made significant reforms, preserved the safety net for
American farmers, and dramatically increased domestic nutrition
assistance. And for the first time in history we have given specialty
crops a seat at the table. We did all of this, and we complied with the
PAYGO rules of this House.
It is not a perfect bill. There are some who would have preferred
more conservation spending or more reforms. However, the 2008 farm bill
is the product of hard work and compromise, and should not be
discounted simply because we could not meet the unrealistic,
impractical, and unworkable benchmarks set by the administration.
I take particularly strong exception to the President's repeated
insistence in the farm bill that it must be vetoed in the name of
international trade agreements. Meeting our global trade obligations
should never trump critical domestic priorities. Our farmers have the
capacity for immeasurable innovation and success, and they deserve our
commitment and our support, and it is done in this farm bill.
The President has let down American agriculture today, and that is
just a shame. But I am confident that, together with the Senate, we can
override this veto today and make good on our promise to protect
American farmers and ranchers. I strongly urge my colleagues to
override this veto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 8\1/2\
minutes; the gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman
from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from Arizona has 4
minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl).
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding
the President's veto of the farm bill.
When I was elected to Congress, I joined the Agriculture Committee
because of my district's rich and deep tradition in farming. And as a
member of this committee, I am committed to serving not only the needs
of my district, but also to preserving our Nation's agricultural
vitality. As such, I am extremely disappointed by the President's veto.
I am very pleased, however, by what our committee has been able to do
in writing this farm bill. This farm bill fairly and accurately
represents the interests of all our farmers and various agricultural
industries across the country and was fashioned in a bipartisan manner.
Particularly the dairy and specialty crops and conservation programs
will be extremely beneficial to New York farmers. But, more
importantly, this legislation contains reform.
For the first time in history there will be a hard cap on the
adjusted gross income standard to prevent the wealthiest from receiving
payments. As such, this farm bill has broad support from a variety of
agricultural, nutrition, conservation, and consumer entities. This farm
bill is an opportunity to make American farm policy truly
comprehensive, competitive and cohesive, and I urge my colleagues in
Congress to override this veto.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize
an outstanding member of our conference committee, also a member of the
Ag Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentleman, Mr.
Speaker, this bill requires our urgent action to override the
President's veto. The American people are concerned about many, many
things, but they are most concerned about the high cost of food and the
high cost of gasoline. And as soon as this bill is made into law, we
will deal with these two issues right away.
The first thing that this bill does to address the high cost of food
and the high cost of gasoline is that we immediately look at the corn-
based ethanol, and we reduce the tax credits on corn-based ethanol and
we increase the tax credits on ethanol made from cellulosic materials,
which are switch grass and pine straw.
The other reason why we need to make sure we override this veto is
simply because, Mr. Speaker, this bill will reach out and bring in
individual segments of our population that were left out. The African
American farmers are entitled to their due, and this bill will require
that African American farmers who in the past have been discriminated
against will have this, and it provides millions of dollars for
traditionally African American schools. That is why it is important
that we override the veto of this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
{time} 1715
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
join me in voting to override the President's veto of the farm bill.
It's a widely held axiom that good agriculture policy is good Federal
policy. This farm bill is a fulfillment of that statement.
This legislation will continue a safety net for America's producers
and consumers, while providing a proper return on investment to the
American taxpayer. The food and fiber commodity market is an extremely
unpredictable place in which our producers have no ability to set their
prices for their products.
Furthermore, farmers and ranchers in all areas of the world are
forced to deal with uncontrollable production risks that could at any
time wipe out an entire year's income at a moment's notice. These are
fundamentals that will never change, and I firmly believe that we'll
always have a need for policies and mechanisms to address these issues.
This long overdue and extremely important piece of legislation, once
law, will return a sense of certainty to farmers and ranchers of rural
America.
The farm bill has an important impact on every single American, and I
[[Page 10284]]
strongly support this bipartisan act, and urge my colleagues to
override the President's veto.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I hate to have to come to the
floor today to talk about how bad this bill is, but it's impossible not
to do that.
This bill gives millions of dollars, billions of dollars in farm
subsidies to millionaires. This bill takes all budget discipline in
this Chamber and throws it out the window. It sweeps PAYGO under the
rug.
Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers don't live in this
country. They're overseas. And the way we help farmers is to open up
markets to their products overseas. This bill shuts that down. This
bill makes it next to impossible for us to be able to open up markets
for our farmers.
A farm bill ought to help the family farmer in tough times. This
doesn't do that. This is corporate welfare. This is subsidies for
multi-millionaires. In fact, you can still live on Wall Street, make
half a million dollars and get farm subsidies under this bill.
This bill is not going to help agriculture. This bill is going to
help corporate agriculture, not family farmers.
I believe that we should sustain the President's veto. And this is
not always good to say it's bipartisan. And I hope, on a bipartisan
basis, we support this veto and pass a farm bill that actually helps
the family farmer and takes away these exorbitant subsidies to multi-
millionaire corporate farming operations.
We ought to protect conservation. We ought to help the Third World
raise themselves out of poverty, and we ought to open up markets for
our farmers so they have more people to sell their products to. That's
what a farm bill ought to look like. That's not what this farm bill
does.
I urge a sustain of the veto.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy)
who is a member of both the Ways and Means Committee and Agriculture
Committee, and did an outstanding job in helping us put this bill
together.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the chairman. The rhetoric is a little overblown
against this bill, as it was the first time it was before us, as it was
when we passed it on final passage.
The fact is, this bill spends billions less than the last farm bill.
This bill increases the baseline on conservation, and this bill is the
result of some of the best bipartisan activity I've seen in this place
to develop and produce a fine product. It responds to the needs of
consumers having a hard time buying their groceries with increased
nutrition support. It responds to the struggles of family farmers
meeting the incredibly high cost of getting their crop in with better
risk protection, and it does so in a collaborative measure.
As my friend, Bob Goodlatte, said last week, this isn't Republicans
voting for a Democrat farm bill, this is the parties coming together to
build a strong collaborative product.
I urge us to override the President's veto of this very important
bill for rural America.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a ranking member on the
Agriculture Subcommittee, Mr. Lucas.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to
override the President's veto. As I told you a few days ago, not
everything in this bill do I love. But the fact of the matter is, I
love rural America. And production agriculture and those small towns
and all those good people who live out there who work the land and
raise the stock, provide the food and fiber that feeds and clothes us
all. And they know that we need a comprehensive farm bill. They know
how important it is that we provide the resources to meet the needs of
this country.
Now, 75 percent of this bill goes to the food stamp program, the
feeding programs. They understand that in rural America. They want to
make sure all of our fellow citizens have enough to eat.
But they also know that they fight the weather, they're paying more
for diesel and fertilizer and inputs than they ever have or they may
ever again. But they want to raise those crops, and they want a
comprehensive farm bill that provides a reasonable amount of safety net
to allow them to work with their bankers and financiers.
Vote to override the veto for the future of rural America.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1
minute to one of our new outstanding freshmen on the Agriculture
Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who represents a
very big agriculture district and has done outstanding work for us.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I've read the President's reasons for vetoing this farm
bill, and it's clear that even though he owns a ranch, he's not a
rancher. It's clear he doesn't understand that to have national
security, America needs food security. It's clear that while the White
House whines about crop subsidies, that his administration's failed
economic policies have resulted in $4 per gallon diesel and
skyrocketing fertilizer costs that are driving farmers in Florida out
of business.
Although not perfect, this farm bill, for the first time, gives
Florida agriculture some of the monies we need to help market and
protect our crops. It ensures that our Nation's hungry children and
seniors get Florida's fresh fruit and vegetables. It invests in
conservation that will speed up our efforts to save the Everglades.
Finally, this farm bill, in combination with the energy bill,
provides rural Florida a new beginning by breaking the corn ethanol
monopoly, and ensuring that Florida, the biggest biomass producing
State in the Nation, takes its rightful place as a leader in renewable
energy production.
I call on my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to vote to override
the President's veto.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of
the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the
average U.S. farmer provides enough food and fiber for 143 persons,
both here in the United States and internationally. This new farm bill
continues agricultural policies which have allowed America's farmers to
help feed the world.
I believe that the farm bill promotes agricultural stability and
diversification, agriculture-based renewable energy production, and
good conservation and land stewardship practices. As with any
complicated piece of legislation, there are trade-offs and concerns.
For instance, payment limitation reform progressed, but did not go far
enough in my view. Even though I'm going to vote to override the
President's veto, I do commend the administration for its considerable
efforts to highlight the need for reform, particularly in the area of
payment limitations.
I'm also pleased that the farm bill conference report includes three
of my initiatives. First, a new rural energy self-sufficiency
initiative that would provide grants to rural communities seeking to
become energy self-sufficient through the use of renewable sources such
as wind and solar and biofuels and biomass.
Additionally, there is a new provision allowing school systems and
other governmental institutions to purchase local foods from local
farmers, promoting agricultural sustainability and diversification.
And there is a change to the value-added producer grants program that
would help target assistance to farmers with small or mid-sized farms
who develop new uses and creative marketing strategies for their
product.
Mr. Speaker, the development of this important legislation has taken
several years. This ground has been plowed long enough. I believe this
bill deserves merit. I wish to thank our ranking member, Chairman
Goodlatte, for his
[[Page 10285]]
support of this bill and Chairman Peterson as well for his considerable
efforts.
Mr. FLAKE. I just want to address some of the comments that have been
made. It's been said several times that this bill is good because it's
a bipartisan bill. If this is the standard by which we judge
legislation, then we're doing pretty poorly in this House.
If anybody remembers, just a couple of years ago, the infamous bill
that brought us the Bridge to Nowhere. Do you want to know how
bipartisan that bill was? I believe it was 412 votes for, 8 votes
against. If that isn't bipartisan, what is?
Yet who would want that vote back if they could? 6,300 earmarks, with
a lot of bad ones, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. And yet we
laud legislation simply because it's bipartisan.
I would love to see a lot more partisanship in this House when it
comes to fiscal discipline. I wish that my party, the Republican Party,
would stand up and say, anybody who believes in limited government
cannot support a bill like this, a $300 billion bill that is bipartisan
because so many groups are now involved.
You do a specialty crop title; you add another subsidy program called
ACRE, you get biomass in it, you get cellulosic ethanol, you add
another nutrition program, and pretty soon you have so many people in
it that they don't dare vote against it, and it just gets bigger and
bigger and bigger, and pretty soon you have a $300 billion bill that
you can only pay for by shopping for a baseline other than this year's
baseline, and waive PAYGO requirements. That's why this is a bipartisan
bill.
I would hope, in a week where a major news organization published,
and I hope it set off some alarm bells here, that not only do we have
about 9 or $10 trillion in debt, but when you add in the unfunded
liabilities, it adds up to about a half a million dollars per person in
this country, the amount of debt and unfunded obligation that we're on
the hook for.
If we cannot, in this legislation, tell a farm entity, a farm couple
that earns as much as $2.5 million that they can no longer collect farm
subsidies, how in the world are you going to tell a grandmother, you're
going to have to postpone your retirement for a couple of years because
we can't afford your Social Security payment?
How in the world are you going to tell somebody, you know, you're
going to have to have a higher copay on Medicare for prescription drugs
because we have a big farm bill like this?
We need to be more responsible, and I would urge us to sustain the
President's veto.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 6\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman
from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri, a real advocate for
agriculture, Mr. Hulshof.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the President has, for the second time,
vetoed a bill that would help Midwestern farmers. Once again, I rise to
vote for Missouri's family farmers and to override President's veto.
I think it's interesting that for over a year, opponents have said
prices are high, farmers don't need a safety net, as if we can predict
with certainty the market price of commodities 5 years down the road.
Today those opponents claim prices may drop, causing the safety net
to be too expensive. Well, with all respect, which is it?
Sixteen percent of this bill provides a responsible safety net for
farmers when the market turns south. And let's make no mistake. Farmers
don't want to farm for a government check. Farmers want to farm for the
market.
And what is the cost to the American taxpayer? Six cents a day. In my
mind, six cents a day is not too much to pay to ensure that we continue
to have the safest, most abundant food supply at the lowest cost.
Now, we have seen what happens when we offshore or energy production.
What will happen when we offshore our food production? Thank the Lord
above, literally, thank the Lord above that we can put three square
meals a day on our tables from the bounty of our country's own farmers.
This bill is not perfect. It doesn't contain all the reforms that the
other side would want. But under their plan, which failed 117-309, most
of the farms and ranches would not be able to survive the erosion in
farm income. That's according to the Agriculture and Food Policy Center
at Texas A&M.
Some people just can't take yes for an answer. 1,054 organizations,
from MoveOn.Org to the USA Rice Federation, support this bill.
I know it's tough to do, but I urge my colleagues to vote to override
the President's veto and provide this safety net. And I appreciate the
gentleman for the time.
{time} 1730
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to a good friend of the Agricultual Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished
chairman. Let me rise to indicate the broad opposition to the veto of
the President on this agricultural bill, and I'm going to try to rush
through some very vital issues that are of concern to many of us.
I just came back from Haiti and recognized the crisis that our very
good friend and neighbor, the poorest country in the western
hemisphere. The good news is that President Preval, who asked us to
create an opportunity for jobs in a country that is hungry and lacks
jobs, the Haiti trade provisions were in the bill, but unfortunately
vetoed which causes us an urgent necessity to override this veto. The
Caribbean Basin Initiative extension is a vital part.
But yet I look forward to us fixing the parts that included the trade
title that left out the food aid, very important; McGovern-Dole, which
is food for education; giving girls the incentives to come to school.
And then the market access problems that are crucial.
We know there are 850 million hungry people in the world; 300 million
of them are children; 40 percent of those in Haiti eat one meal a day.
We are in a crisis.
This is a crucial legislative initiative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would yield the gentlewoman
1 additional minute.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. So what we are talking about here, I think
there is something important to bipartisanship. Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, thank you for this. I've lived around the edges of the
agriculture bill ever since I came here from Texas. We know about
specialty crops. We know about ranches and farms. I think you did a
great job for these fruits and vegetable farmers because you give them
an incentive to get to market.
And thank you for what you've done for the black farmers, especially
on Pigford, where you allowed those late filers--I've always heard from
them throughout the work on the Judiciary Committee to get back in the
court by being able to file again. We are delighted that you also give
them a greater access; you allow them to have transparency and
accountability in the USDA, and I'm glad that what we do is try to
preserve the black farmers.
This is an important bill. Let's fix the trade part of it, but let's
join together and override a bill that promotes energy and food and
understands you can't have a food fight when people are starving.
I urge our colleagues to vote to override the veto.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said here today about the bipartisan
nature of this legislation, but when it passed the House last week, a
majority on both sides of the aisle voted for this farm bill, and
three-quarters of all of the Members here did so. But we did so because
there are provisions in this bill
[[Page 10286]]
that are of interest to each side of the aisle, and sometimes there are
very clear partisan differences.
But nonetheless, the Republican side of the aisle received a number
of concessions in the final negotiations of this bill: a provision that
would have prohibited all 50 State food stamp programs to be able to
reach out to technology companies and others to modernize and improve
their food stamp program, something they have done many times in the
recent past. A prohibition on that was removed from the bill. A
provision in the bill that would have rolled back the Welfare Reform
Act of 1996 and provided increased food stamps for able-bodied adults
without dependent children was removed from the bill. Provisions
related to the Davis-Bacon legislation that many Members on my side of
the aisle, including myself, were concerned about were removed from the
bill.
So this is a bipartisan bill because it was compromise and give-and-
take on both sides of the aisle.
I have also heard Members complain that this bill is not fiscally
responsible. It's less than the last farm bill. It is less than either
the House-passed version of the bill or the Senate-passed version of
the bill: $4 billion less than the House, $5 billion less than the
Senate version. I ask any Member here in the House, when was the last
time they recall that a bill came back from a conference between the
House and the Senate and spent less money than either the House or
Senate spent?
And I would give you this overall picture. Americans spend about $1.2
trillion a year on food. The provisions in this bill related to the
commodity title, the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers, is
about $7 billion or slightly less than one-half of 1 percent of what
Americans spend on food.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has
expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Now for that one-half cent on every dollar, Americans get the
stability and safety of their food supply and the assurance that they
will not see in the United States what they're seeing in other
countries around the world which do not have a good farm program for
their farmers that assure their consumers that they will get an
adequate, safe, and affordable supply of food. They do not see food
riots in the United States.
They see, instead, those in the greatest need receiving appropriate
food programs and the average American being able to spend less than 9
percent of their income on food. That is lower than any other country
in the world today or any other country in the history of the world.
This farm bill helps to promote those good policies. I urge my
colleagues to support the override.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, under of the commodity title of the current bill, we
still have loan deficiency programs in place, countercyclical programs,
another $25 billion of direct payments that will go out over the next 5
years regardless of price or production. A new revenue-based
countercyclical program has been added to it. And then the granddaddy
of all earmarks, a disaster relief fund has been created, all of which
have been reformed upwards rather than down, rather than restricting
it.
I think the gentleman I talked to earlier is right. This can be
described as the good, the bad, and the ugly farm bill. Unfortunately,
the ugly outweighs the good here today. But, of course, whenever you go
$10.5 billion above current baseline and put enough money around and
enough groups with enough individuals, you're going to get a strong
vote. We understand that.
But someone needs to stand up here today on behalf of the American
taxpayer. Someone needs to stand here in the Chamber and say the
emperor has no clothes. This farm bill will continue to distort the
marketplace. It will continue to paint a bull's-eye on the back of our
farmers through trade-distorting policies. And I would encourage my
colleagues, if they took another look, a closer look at what's being
proposed here today, they would understand that we can and should do a
better job.
I would encourage my colleagues to sustain the President's veto and
do the farm bill the right way, not the wrong way.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people make a lot of
claims about this bill. Editorial writers, most of them get the
information wrong. But as has been mentioned here before, 15 percent of
the bill goes to farmers; 9 percent of that goes to traditional
commodity type programs; the balance of it to crop insurance and the
new disaster program; 73\1/2\ percent of this bill goes to nutrition
programs, while 7 percent goes to conservation.
So you can talk all you want about the bull's-eye on the back of the
farmers, but people need to understand that the European Union now is
having discussion to get rid of their direct payments and increase
their commodity price supports similar to what we have here in the
United States. And there are people in this country that would like to
do this as well. This ideology that's been pushed by the World Bank,
the IMF, all of these other world organizations, is part of the reason
we're in trouble in this country and in the world.
We have, not just us but countries all over the world, have sold food
below the cost of our production. Some of our opponents want us to keep
doing this. I understand if you're a livestock farmer you want to keep
buying cheap corn. But we've addicted these folks in these developing
countries to cheap food prices. Now that we're getting prices that are
more realistic, all of a sudden it's a problem because they didn't
develop their own agriculture. They got hooked on exports from the
United States and from other countries.
What we're doing in this bill is recognizing all of the different
aspects of this country, not just farm country, not just farmers, but
people in the city, people in the suburbs, people that like to hunt and
fish, people that are concerned about the environment, people that are
concerned about getting nutritious food into our schools and having
more fresh fruit and vegetables available for people around the
country, and people that want to get independent from foreign oil. All
of these things are covered in this bill.
Are they done to the magnitude that I would like in some areas? No. I
would say everybody here would probably agree that they would like to
have something a little bit stronger in one area or the other or maybe
a little weaker in one area or the other.
But this is a compromise, a bipartisan compromise that I am proud of
the way that we've been able to put together. Mr. Goodlatte and I sat
in that room for many days with our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. We operated on an equal basis, as Mr. Goodlatte pointed out.
There was give and take. This was a true bipartisan effort. We came up
with a true bipartisan bill that we should be proud of that is good for
America, that spends less than the last farm bill, that, as Mr.
Goodlatte says, spends less than both bills that passed the House and
the Senate. I can't remember a time around here when we've done
something like that.
So I encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this bill to
understand that this is something that's good for the country. I urge
my colleagues to override the veto of the President.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto, but I would like
to close my remarks by commending the President of the United States
and his administration for their involvement in this process. They have
improved this farm bill considerably from the versions that were passed
in the House and the Senate. In fact, I'm going to yield a portion of
my time to the leader.
But I want to say that this includes more than 90 provisions that the
President of the United States, the leaders
[[Page 10287]]
in the Department of Agriculture and others, suggested to us to reform.
And there are numerous reforms in this legislation that are very, very
substantial, very, very significant. They would not have occurred
without the President's active involvement and support for efforts to
improve this farm bill.
This farm bill is dramatically reformed from previous farm bills, and
as a result of his involvement, of involvement on both sides of the
aisle, this farm bill is dramatically improved. As a result, the
Republican Members on this side of the aisle went from 17 Members
supporting the bill when it came out of the Agriculture Committee to
100 Members supporting it when we voted for it last week.
There is much to commend in this bill. The President has asked for
additional reforms. I supported him in the efforts to obtain some of
those reforms, but we could not achieve every single objective that he
sought because this is a bipartisan bill that includes the
considerations of a wide array of viewpoints.
But I will say that this side of the aisle was well represented in
this process and thanks in part to the efforts of the administration.
Notwithstanding that, the bill is a good bill, and we would urge our
colleagues to support it.
At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the Republican
leader, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I'm not
going to talk about the farm bill.
I'm a little concerned and have serious doubts about the process that
we're using to bring this bill considering that the bill that the
President vetoed is not the bill that the Members are being asked to
override.
Remember, there were 12 titles in the farm bill that we sent to the
President. The bill that we have, that we're overriding, contains 11
titles. Title III of the bill is missing.
Now, the reason I rise is because I have got doubts about the process
that we're engaged in, and I have doubts about the constitutionality of
what it is that we're doing. And people were in such a hurry to bring
this bill up here to the floor that no one would take the time to
consider what is it that we're doing; is it constitutional, and should
we proceed under the conditions we find ourselves.
We don't know why title III of the bill that we sent to the President
is missing in the document that we're considering right now.
So it is not just me as a Member. I think there are other Members on
both sides of the aisle that are wondering should we proceed with this
and is what we're doing constitutional, is it breaking precedent with
what we've done in the past. I would just ask my colleagues, and
especially ask the majority, why we couldn't take some time to
understand what happened in this process, why title III isn't included
in the bill that we're moving to override.
And so until there are answers to this, I would suggest to the
majority that we ought to consider suspending activity on this until
such time as we know we have answers to the questions that Members on
both sides are going to have.
{time} 1745
I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
As I understand it, it was just a glitch in the printing of the
document that went to the White House. They vetoed the bill missing
title III and didn't recognize it.
As I understand, the Constitution says that when we have a veto, we
are bound to deal with it. So we don't see any other way to deal with
this thing at this point other than to deal with the President's veto,
have the override and then deal with title III later.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I don't know whether the President
signed the bill that included title III or not. I don't know where
title III fell from the bill. That's the point I'm making.
Until there are answers as to what did happen, how we proceed is
critically important to the constitutionality of the process that we're
engaged in here.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today the President vetoed the
Farm Bill conference report--a significant piece of legislation that is
supported by the vast majority of the House of Representatives. While I
am disappointed with the President's veto, I am proud to stand with so
many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in making the Farm
Bill law.
This bill, while not perfect, addresses some of the most pressing
issues facing our nation today. Perhaps most importantly, this bill
will provide millions of Americans with access to healthy food,
especially those hit hardest by the President's failed economic
policies. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's funding will promote
nutrition initiatives such as increased access to food stamps,
emergency food assistance programs, and a program to supply our schools
with fresh fruits and vegetables as a healthy snack alternative to
reduce our unacceptably high ratio of obese children.
This bill will help my home state of Colorado continue to lead the
nation in developing renewable energy technologies, and will help our
nation move closer to energy independence, while reducing overly
generous tax credits for corn-based ethanol, and creating a better tax
credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels, such
as switch grass and wood chips.
The bill also ensures that farmers in Colorado and around the nation
have some protections should a natural disaster befall them. This
action may foster lower future grocery prices by speeding up disaster
compensation for lost crops and allowing farmers to bring new crops to
market faster. Meanwhile, conservation programs included in the bill
will help further protect sensitive rural fields from urban sprawl and
harmful over farming, while encouraging public access to private land.
Of particular interest to Colorado, this bill includes legislation I
introduced that will protect the future of Colorado's unique collection
of mutual ditch companies and the precious water rights that they share
for the mutual benefit of all Coloradans.
To be sure, I would have preferred this bill include tighter reforms
on farm subsidies, especially when many farmers are reporting surging
profits. But no compromise can he all things to all people, and while
this Farm Bill is not perfect, it is good for Colorado and for our
nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in overriding the President's
flawed national priorities when it comes to agriculture, energy
independence and ensuring that American families have food on their
tables.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passing H.R.
2419, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding,
will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on
H.R. 3819, H.R. 5826, and H.R. 5856.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 316,
nays 108, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 346]
YEAS--316
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
[[Page 10288]]
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--108
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boehner
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Cooper
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Granger
Harman
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Reichert
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Tiberi
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Fossella
Gillibrand
Kennedy
Rush
Tiahrt
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1809
Mrs. GRANGER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. WOOLSEY and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the bill was passed, the
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the
action of the House.
____________________
VETERANS EMERGENCY CARE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3819, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3819, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 347]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
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
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
[[Page 10289]]
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
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Berman
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, M.
English (PA)
Fortenberry
Fossella
Gillibrand
Herger
Kennedy
McHugh
Nadler
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Terry
Tiahrt
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1816
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 347, unfortunately, during
the vote I was unavoidably detained off the House floor. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 347. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
VETERANS' COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5826, 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 California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5826.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 0, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
YEAS--417
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-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
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.
Dicks
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
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
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
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Cramer
Crenshaw
Delahunt
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Kagen
Kennedy
McDermott
Rush
Speier
Tiahrt
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1823
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.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we just finished a vote several minutes ago
on the override of the farm bill, except that the override vote
occurred on a bill that had never been considered by the House or the
Senate, since the bill that we voted to override apparently is missing
one title of the bill--or the conference report--that passed the House
and the Senate. I am concerned about the procedures, the process, and
the constitutionality of what we've just done.
I would like to ask the majority leader if he can help myself and the
other Members understand just what are we dealing with here.
[[Page 10290]]
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, clearly, what we are dealing with is an
unfortunate situation. The unfortunate situation is that apparently--
and again I just learned about this about an hour and a half ago when
Mr. Peterson, the chairman of the committee, told me he and Mr.
Goodlatte were discussing this problem and how to proceed. Apparently
what happened is title III, which I understand is not very
controversial, but in any event, title III came up on the screen for
the printing on the parchment that is sent to the President, but,
unfortunately, for whatever reasons, it was not printed out and it was
not caught in the proofing of that. Apparently, as well, the White
House did not catch the fact that the bill was not inclusive of title
III.
Frankly, I have not looked at the bill to see whether there's a title
I, II, and then goes to IV, which would have been self-evident that
there was a missing title.
In any event, without having researched it or talked to anybody about
precedents, what has happened is that the House and the Senate passed
in exactly the same form that which was vetoed by the President. Now,
we passed more than that, but that which we have just voted on was
passed in both Houses in exactly the form we just voted on.
The vote, therefore, superficially, off the top of my head, without
having researched this, is that what we have done is we have passed
that which we originally passed through the House and the Senate and
sent to the President, notwithstanding the President's veto, and
something that we did also pass, which was incorporated in that bill,
was neither vetoed nor signed by the President because, unfortunately,
as a result of a clerical error, it was not included in the bill.
I, in discussions with Mr. Peterson, understand that he and Mr.
Goodlatte were in discussion on this issue when they first learned of
it, and I don't know how long they knew about it before I found out
about it; that, as I thought, their agreement would be that we would
pass, subsequent to passing the initial bill, the title III either by
unanimous consent or under the suspension calendar.
I don't know the conversations that occurred between Mr. Peterson and
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Peterson is on the floor, I know. I don't know
exactly where he is. But it was his understanding that that would be an
acceptable way to proceed. That was where I thought it to be.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, we may have transported to the
President a portion of the bill that passed the House and Senate, but
we did not send to the President, apparently, the farm bill conference
report as passed by the House and the Senate.
I think what's of grave concern to me is, yes, I understand that
mistakes do happen in this process, but before the consideration of the
override debate and vote, we were aware of the problem. And I just
think that in deference to all Members, we could have waited before
consideration of the override so that all the Members would understand
just what we're dealing with and the problems that are contained
therein. I just think that in the rush to move this override vote, we
don't know what precedents of the House we may have stepped on and what
constitutional problems that we may have. I would remind my colleague
that there was a very small mistake made in the Deficit Reduction Act
several years ago that's been the subject of a lawsuit and privileged
resolutions and moral outrage from some of my friends on the other side
of the aisle, which, frankly, the Deficit Reduction Act error pales in
comparison to what we have here.
So I would ask my colleague, I think we need to get to the bottom of
what happened.
{time} 1830
I don't know that the override that we just cast--we voted to
override a bill that had never been considered by the House or the
Senate, and I don't know how that is constitutional.
I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. HOYER. Well, as I said, everything that we voted on was passed by
the House and the Senate in exactly the same form. Obviously, I agree
with your premise that the bill as passed out of Congress was not the
exact same bill because of the deletion of title III, apparently by
error. Title III, as I understand, is not particularly controversial. I
understand that from the discussion between Mr. Goodlatte and Mr.
Peterson.
So a mistake was made. A deletion was made. The President and the
White House did not catch it. We didn't catch it. The President vetoed
a bill. The bill that he vetoed, he sent back here. We have now said
notwithstanding the veto, we believe the provisions that we both passed
should in fact become law.
Now the gentleman is correct, which is self-evident, and I can't
disagree with your proposition that the bill was not in exactly the
same form, and as I indicated at the beginning, because I only learned
about this about an hour and a half ago, these are off-of-the-top-of-
my-head opinions, and are probably worth that much.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, in terms of how this problem gets
fixed, is there some consideration for how we fix this error?
Mr. HOYER. Yes.
Will the gentlemen yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOYER. We hope to have, again, as result of discussions between
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte, either by unanimous consent, which may
not be possible, or under suspension because, again, I understand from
Mr. Peterson that title III is not a controversial title. Clearly,
title I was controversial. Other titles were controversial. But if that
is the case, then we can pass this by suspension tomorrow with
suspension authority and send that to the Senate and hopefully they
will then in turn send that to the President that title which has not
yet been enacted or, frankly, acted on by the President, would either
be signed by him or vetoed by him and we would consider it in that
context.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the distinguished Republican leader for yielding.
As the leader has said, this is a circumstance that does bring to mind
the Deficit Reduction Act controversy which created a huge stir in this
place and one with which we are still trying to contend.
I just heard that the Rules Committee was scheduled to reconvene at
6:30 this evening to report out the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization
bill, and I have been told that there's going to be some attempt made
in the Rules Committee to deal with this issue in that rule. That's the
word that we have been hearing over here.
I thank my friend for yielding. If he would yield to the
distinguished majority leader, I would like to have us enlightened on
the prospect of this.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOYER. The only thing, as I understand it, would be to make
tomorrow a suspension day. It's not a suspension day. So we would have
to make it a suspension day.
Mr. BOEHNER. If I could yield to my colleague from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I don't think, as I listen to this conversation and see it develop
today, if we pass this section that the President hasn't seen, and the
Senate passes the section that the President hasn't seen, and he either
signs or vetoes it, that would be the only bill that the House actually
passed that the President sees on this topic. It is clear if you look
at the line-item veto case, it was clear in that case that the
President can't selectively veto things in a part of a House bill.
Again, think through this with me, if you will. The only thing the
President
[[Page 10291]]
will have seen that the House and Senate both passed as it stands would
be this last portion.
The concept that we can start sending bills over piecemeal because
the House had passed this part of it is a flawed concept. Who knows
what the House would pass if it didn't get a chance to pass the full
bill each time. We would have passed the tax extenders today,
unanimously, if it hadn't had the portion on it on new tax increases.
We would have all voted for that part of the tax extenders bill. It
wouldn't have changed that part of the bill. In fact, if we had only
sent the President that part of the tax extenders bill, he would have
signed it. But he probably won't sign it with this additional thing.
When we had the Deficit Reduction Act, which, believe me, I remember
in vivid detail, vivid detail; we had a bill that we sent to the
Senate, the Senate clerk made a change in it and sent it to the Senate
floor. Nobody in the Senate who voted on the bill knew that it had been
changed, so it had no impact on the Senate vote.
The Senate clerk got it back, realized that her change was
inaccurate, sent it back to us just like we had sent it over to them.
We voted on it again and sent it to the President, and didn't know
until the signing ceremony that this had ever occurred. We didn't know
until the signing ceremony that this had ever occurred. There was no
action on the House at all with any knowledge any of this had ever
occurred. In fact, none of it even occurred on the House side.
At that time, the minority leader stood up and said:
``Whereas, although the Senate Enrolling Clerk mistakenly changed
critical numbers that had major financial significance, leadership
deliberately chose to ignore that notification and instead allowed the
House to vote on an incorrect version of this legislation.''
Not true, by the way.
``Whereas, the effect of these actions raises serious constitutional
questions and jeopardizes the legal status of this legislation.
``Resolved, that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall
begin an immediate investigation into the abuse of power surrounding
the accuracy of the process and enrollment.''
The Speaker of the House, my friends, certified to the President that
we were sending him a bill exactly as we had passed it. We now
understand that clearly was not an accurate certification of what the
House has done, and we are about to go down a path that might have the
only action really taken by the House that the President sees in
totality, this last segment of the bill. Why we would have moved
forward, knowing all those facts before we moved forward, is a mystery
to me.
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I am looking for the exact date, but the farm bill expires
tomorrow, and we have to extend the farm bill or go back to the 1949
extension.
Again, I would say to my friend I am operating with some concerns
about the questions that are raised. But, again, I say, first of all,
what happened in the Deficit Reduction Act is that the bill that was
sent to the President, the provisions were never passed by the Senate.
Every provision that was sent to the President was sent to the
President after overwhelming votes from the House, overwhelming votes
from the Senate in exactly the same position. Title III was passed by
the Senate and the House, and inadvertently left out.
In the Deficit Reduction Act, figures were changed in the bill
subsequent to passing the Senate and never passed by the House. So I
would suggest that the analogy between the two is not apt. In addition,
there was no bipartisan discussion on that change.
In this case, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte are both on the floor. I
didn't participate in those conversations. But I was informed by Mr.
Peterson, because I said, have you talked to Mr. Goodlatte about this.
He said he had. There had been significant discussions about that.
There was concern about getting the farm bill passed because of the
expiration of the existing authorization.
As a result of those discussions, my personal thought was there was
bipartisan agreement that we could proceed this way. We did proceed
that way. I don't think I can amplify my response more than that.
Mr. BLUNT. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for his response. We may have a
significant debate over whatever standards we were held to, that people
are no longer held to. I will say that in that case, nobody in the
House ever knew that any changes had been made, and it was alleged that
somehow we were going to be subject to Ethics Committee investigations.
I would say in this case that my principal concern would be that the
sections of the farm bill that have gone to the President, since they
were not part of an entire bill, could be subject to all kinds of
future litigation. I do know in the litigation that the minority
initiated in February, 2006, 2 years and millions of taxpayer dollars
later, we finally ended that litigation at the court of appeals level
with the court of appeals deciding that if the Speaker and the
President pro tempore certified that this is what both bodies passed,
it was what both bodies passed.
Here, we're moving forward with both bodies admitting that what this
President has seen is not what both bodies passed. This idea that just
because a portion of the bill has passed in a bigger bill means that
the House was for that portion of the bill, that the Senate was for
that portion of the bill, I don't think would stand any reasonable test
of a way for us to move forward, and I think this bill does become
subject to all kind of challenges from outside this building as well as
perhaps from inside.
Mr. BOEHNER. I would just add, what has happened here raises serious
constitutional questions, very serious. I don't know how we can proceed
with the override as it occurred, nor do I think we should proceed with
some attempt to fix it until such time as we all understand what
happened, what are the precedents of the House, and how do we move
forward.
As a result, I really believe that there ought to be a motion, I may
make the motion, to vacate the vote that has occurred until we all
understand better about what it is that we are dealing with.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOYER. My suggestion will be that we have another vote. We are
going to have some other business coming. We discussed this briefly in
the hallway. My suggestion is before we make any motions, that we take
the time, your leadership and our leadership, let's sit down and
discuss this and then we can come back and do whatever each decides to
do.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I would just like to raise one other point that should be part of
those discussions. If I could remind our colleagues, one of the items
that was debated vigorously during consideration of the farm bill
happened to be the issue of the baseline numbers that were used. We are
poised at this moment to bring up a budget resolution which will raise
a question as to exactly what baseline level is used and what pay-fors
might be out there. So I think that we have some very serious questions
that are raised.
My friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) just reminded us again that for
us to conclude, as the distinguished Republican whip has said, that
this bill somehow would have passed identically in the exact same form
is a real stretch. For that reason, I think that we have lots of
questions that need to be addressed before we do proceed.
I thank my friend for yielding.
[[Page 10292]]
{time} 1845
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio yield for that
purpose?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITY AUTHORIZATION AND LEASE
ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5856, 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 California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5856.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
YEAS--416
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)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
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
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Feeney
Fossella
Gillibrand
Green, Gene
Kennedy
LaTourette
Rangel
Rush
Tiahrt
Walden (OR)
Wexler
Wynn
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1909
Mr. SIMPSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend remarks
on general debate concerning H.R. 5658.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
____________________
DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1213 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5658.
{time} 1910
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Jackson of Illinois in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today the House begins consideration of H.R. 5658,
which
[[Page 10293]]
is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
This bill is a collective effort in the bipartisan tradition of the
House Armed Services Committee which approved the bill in markup by a
vote of 61-0. It is an excellent bill.
I want to thank the members of our Armed Services Committee,
particularly the subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members, and
actually every member of the committee.
Let me take this opportunity to also, Mr. Chairman, recognize the
ranking member and former chairman, Duncan Hunter, for once again being
a great partner on this bill, and he is certainly to be commended and
thanked for it. I am proud that Duncan and I have worked so well
together through the years and always with the common goal of enhancing
American national security.
It is only fitting, Mr. Chairman, that as Duncan Hunter plans to
retire at the end of this Congress, our committee colleagues
unanimously voted to name this bill in his honor, recognizing Duncan
Hunter's many years of service on the Armed Services Committee, and
also recognizing his unfailing support of our men and women in uniform.
And we thank him publicly for that.
Mr. Chairman, let me discuss some significant provisions of the bill.
It reflects our committee's view that restoring military readiness must
be our number one priority. This is serious business. If, after more
than 6 years of war, our effort is to restore military readiness, then
it must be sustained in order to meet not just current military
challenges, which are monumental, but prepare for the unexpected
conflicts we may face in the future.
We don't know what is around the corner. I might point out, in the
last 31 years American military forces have been engaged in no less
than 12 military conflicts, four of which have been major in size.
The bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness
initiatives requested by the services. It includes $932 million to deal
with equipment shortages as well as for equipment maintenance. The bill
also provides for some $800 million for National Guard and Reserve
equipment, and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working
order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military
barracks.
{time} 1915
To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill
increases the size of our military; 7,000 additional Army troops, 5,000
additional marines, and prevents further military to civilian
conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023
Navy sailors and 450 additional Air Force personnel.
The bill also maintains our efforts to support and honor the men and
women who serve our Nation in uniform and their families, providing a
much needed 3.9 percent pay raise increase, and again, prohibiting
increases in health care fees, among a range of other initiatives.
I might point out, the administration recommended only a 3.4 percent
pay raise, and we raised that, as we should have.
The authorization bill also keeps our focus on Afghanistan, which is
the primary front in the war on terror. The bill requires the
administration to submit separate budget requests to clearly lay out
the requirements for the war in Afghanistan, and on the other hand, the
war in Iraq. It requires a system be set up to measure the success of
the U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and requires more robust
congressional reporting on the training of the Afghan Security Force.
Finally, the bill requires the Department of Defense to address the
issue of command and control for forces in Afghanistan operating under
Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as the NATO International Security
Assistance Force.
The bill authorizes a $70 billion bridge for the fights in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But we remain convinced that it's well past time for the
Iraqis to step up and contribute more substantially to their very own
security, as well as their prosperity. With the Iraqis' overwhelming
budget and capital account surpluses, the bill requires Iraqis to
invest more in their own reconstruction, as well as their own security
efforts.
The bill also includes steps toward contracting reform after the
substantial improvements in the law which we enacted in our previous
bill last year.
This bill underlines our commitment to preventing the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. It adds $31 million for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs of the Department of Defense, and some $215
million from the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs.
That's important.
Finally, I want to say a word about the need for reforms in the way
our government coordinates and executes its national security policy.
Many here in Congress as well as the executive branch are working to
improve our interagency system. It's a massive effort that cannot be
accomplished in any one single year.
I remember well the now famous Goldwater-Nichols Act. It was an
effort over 4 years in the Congress of the United States which, of
course, made jointness part of the military culture, and this may well
be along the same line, although hopefully it will not take 4 years to
accomplish. But it cannot be done in one single year.
At the appropriate time during the bill's consideration, I will offer
an amendment along with Chairman Howard Berman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey to
establish a standing advisory board to work with the Secretaries of
State and Defense on interagency matters and report to Congress their
recommendations.
Before I reserve the balance of my time, let me pay tribute to those
Members who plan to leave Congress at the end of this session and for
whom this will be their final defense authorization bill. In addition
to the retirement of our friend and ranking member, Duncan Hunter, I
want to express my appreciation to two other senior Members who plan to
retire, Congressman Jim Saxton and Congressman Terry Everett. Both
these gentlemen have made a very important contribution to our
committee through the years and, consequently, have been wonderful
partners, as well as outstanding Americans.
In addition, two of the most capable and committed members of our
committee, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, plan to leave in order to seek
other offices. The House and our committee are all the better for their
service, and we wish all of these members who are not going to return
to our committee next year all the best. They will be missed.
This is a critical time in our Nation. This defense bill is a very
important one. I urge Members of this House to support this defense
authorization bill. It does so much in the area of readiness, to
support our men and women in uniform and their families, and to protect
the American people.
With that, and additional thanks to my friend, Duncan Hunter, on his
final bill, we appreciate your work, your efforts, your friendship, Mr.
Hunter.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. To my great friend, I don't deserve this honor that he
has recommended here of naming the bill. I'm just an ordinary American,
but I get to serve with lots of extraordinary Americans, and the
gentleman from Missouri is one of those extraordinary Americans. He
talked about the jointness that he's trying to bring over from his
great work on the Goldwater-Nichols bill, of bringing our services
together to act jointly, and extend that to the other agencies which
are so crucial in this operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to bring
them in also in a way that they act as a member of the team led, most
of the time, by the Department of Defense, but nonetheless, one that
requires cohesion and jointness and a culture of working together as a
team.
I want to commend the gentleman for the fact that he has been the
corporate historian, if you will, for the
[[Page 10294]]
House of Representatives and for the Armed Services Committee, who
often brings us back in debate or in hearings to events that transpired
in conflicts 100 years ago sometimes, or World War II or Korea or
Vietnam, and reminds us that we shouldn't have to learn the lesson a
second time. So I want to give my great thanks to this great American,
Ike Skelton, and to all of the members of the great Armed Services
Committee and the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees who
put together such a great bill. A couple of them are sitting here next
to me. I know Jim Saxton is leaving. He was the first chairman of the
Special Operations Subcommittee, the Terrorism Subcommittee, and
traveled the world and the country and every base where we had SOCOM
people stationed, talking to the teams, talking, whether they were
Green Berets or Rangers or SEALs or other operators, trying to
understand what they needed from Congress in order to be effective. He
worked to get them that equipment, and now, as the ranking member of
Air, Land, he continues that mission.
And, of course, Terry Everett, that guy who doesn't make long
speeches but spends a lot of time in classified sessions working and
understanding on the issues surrounding space, and how those issues
relate to national security. Probably nobody else in the country knows
as much as he does on those issues.
And, of course, we've got a couple of members, as the chairman said,
moving on to other offices, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, and we wish
them the very best.
Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent defense bill, and I concur with
the gentleman from Missouri that we should have a unanimous vote in the
House of Representatives, just as we had under his leadership in the
Armed Services Committee.
It does a couple of things that are important for us. It works toward
the warfighting theaters, which are very important, Iraq, Afghanistan
and other places in the world where the global war on terror is taking
place. But, at the same time, and in those, in that category, we put in
extra money for MRAPs for these armored vehicles, for protection for
our troops, for jammers, for all the things, for new surveillance
capability, new anti-mortar capability, all the things that would go to
force protection, and also make our troops more effective in those
theaters.
But beyond that, we pay a lot of attention and put a great deal of
focus on modernizing the military and looking over the horizon to
challenges that may go far beyond the current theaters.
We continue to fund the F-22, which the reports now coming back from
the operators are to the effect that the F-22 is doing extremely well,
a high performance fighter aircraft with lots of capability, lots of
legs, lots of firepower, but especially lots of sensor capability,
which we're finding to be extremely valuable.
The V-22, which is this platform that the Marines wanted for years
because it goes roughly twice as fast as the CH-46s that it's
replacing, are working extremely well in theater. The Marines are
getting from point A to point B in half the time. They're able to carry
out their mission more efficiently and effectively. They like that
particular platform. And across the board, we are replacing and
modernizing our military equipment.
Now there are some things that we need to do in this bill, and I
would hope we could do on the floor. We did cut some $300 million out
of missile defense. Mr. Chairman, we live in an era of missiles. This
is an era in which we will see, in the coming years, the Iranians
continuing to improve on the Shahab missile classes, which already can
reach parts of Europe, at some point will be able to reach all of
Europe, and will be followed by missile classes that, at some point,
will be able to reach the United States.
We also have seen North Korea throw a pod of missiles into the North
China Sea, and the Sea of Japan; some of which have capability, if they
put more sections on those missiles, ultimately, to reach American
allies and the United States itself. So we're entering the middle of
what I would call the era of missiles. And having defense against
missiles is a key part of the American defense system.
We've had these wonderful successes where we've shot down missiles
that are traveling, where the interceptor and the missile it shoots
down 148 miles above the surface of the Earth are traveling roughly
three times the speed of a 30-06 bullet, and we've had collisions in
mid flight. We saw a great demonstration when we took down the rogue
satellite that had to be destroyed to avoid possible collateral damage.
We took that down with a sea-based missile system that worked very
well.
We clearly are moving along in the right direction in trying to put
up defenses as the offensive systems become more sophisticated. But I
think we need to continue to move down that path.
We did cut money out of the European-based missile systems and other
systems, and I would hope that we could restore some of the missile
defense money in this particular bill. I know Mr. Franks will be
offering that.
Similarly, the FCS program, I think, is an area we need to restore
dollars. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of en bloc amendments and
amendments that will be offered by members that I think will, in fact,
make this bill even a little bit better than it is.
I want to finish by thanking the chairman for putting together a
great bill in the Armed Services Committee, for moving it down the road
very quickly, and getting it to the House floor.
This is the bill that provides our troops with the tools that they
need to get the job done. And that's why it's important, that's why
this committee acts in such a bipartisan fashion, and we follow the
bipartisan model of the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton.
I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, my
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) who also is
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R.
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
I want to commend Chairman Skelton for his leadership on bringing
such a strong bipartisan bill to the floor.
As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I have worked with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the bill
achieves three broad objectives. It sustains and modernizes the
stockpile stewardship program, which insures the safety, security and
reliability of our nuclear deterrent. It invests in the development and
deployment of ballistic missile defense systems that address near term
threats to the United States, our deployed troops and our allies. And
it supports significant military space programs in critical phases of
development, including the space-based infrared system.
{time} 1930
With regard to the nuclear complex, it provides additional funding to
address certification issues raised by the 2007 JASON review of the RRW
proposal. It fully executes the National Ignition Campaign, and it
explores next-generation stockpile stewardship tools. The bill fully
funds the request for the defense environmental cleanup and urges DOE
to increase the resources dedicated to cleanup in future budgets.
We also fully fund the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and we stress that the MOX
project is a nonproliferation and a national security priority.
For the Missile Defense Agency, the bill authorizes $8.6 billion, a
cut of $719 million below the administration's request. The bill
reflects our committee's strong bipartisan support for addressing the
short, medium, and intermediate missile threats that face our
warfighters. It includes several important funding increases. It adds
$75 million for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, $75 million for
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, $25 million for missile defense
target development, and $10 million for the joint U.S.-Israel short-
range missile defense program.
[[Page 10295]]
The bill authorizes $341 million for the proposed European missile
defense site, an increase of more than $100 million over current-year
funding but a reduction of $371 million below the administration's
request.
The committee has extended conditions contained in the fiscal year
2008 National Defense Authorization Act to help ensure that the pace of
any deployment of U.S. missile defense systems in Europe is
synchronized with our diplomatic efforts and that the proposed system
has been fully tested.
The bill strongly supports our cooperative programs with Israel
authorizing $54.1 million for the joint U.S.-Israel short-range missile
defense program, an increase of $10 million over the President's
request.
It also authorizes $74.3 million for continued development of the
Arrow Weapons System.
In military space programs, the bill pushes DOD to focus on near-term
warfighter needs, space situational awareness, and space protection.
The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan for the
Department's bandwidth needs in the near and longer term.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to honor my ranking member,
Mr. Everett of Alabama, who is retiring this year. Mr. Everett was
previously the chairman of this subcommittee. There is no finer
gentleman in the House. He is a man of significant effort, he is a
perfect Southern gentleman, and it was my pleasure to work with him
over the last few years and this year to have him as my ranking member.
I wish him and his wife Barbara and their family all the best in their
retirement years.
Mr. Chairman, the bill supports our critical national security
priorities, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support its adoption
today.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady in
putting this bill together and recognize the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Saxton) who, every time I talked to him over the last 4 or 5
years, he was meeting with a different group of special operators
trying to figure out what they needed and where they needed to go and
tireless in pouring himself into an airplane to get to yet another base
and meet with more troops.
He's done a wonderful job as the ranking member of the Air and Land
Subcommittee. We're going to miss the gentleman from New Jersey.
I would like to yield him 5 minutes.
Mr. SAXTON. I want to thank Mr. Hunter for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said here tonight about
bipartisanship and working together, and it's absolutely been a
fantastic experience for the last 2 years we've worked under the
leadership of our good friend, Ike Skelton. I might say that one of the
reasons that this bipartisanship works so well is very simply because
we're all friends. We're friends in the committee, we're friends in the
hallway, we're friends in our offices, and we are friends here on the
floor, and we're friends when we're not in session.
And so we appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight on the floor
in that spirit.
I might also thank my good friend from California (Mr. Hunter) for
the kind remarks that he offered with regard to my service. But I want
to say something, too, about Mr. Hunter, because for the last several
years before Ike Skelton, Mr. Hunter was our chairman, and now he's our
ranking member. Following in the footsteps of Floyd Spence and Bob
Stump, Duncan Hunter picked up the job of being chairman and continued
to set the tone for the bipartisanship that is a hallmark of the Armed
Services Committee.
Perhaps as only Ronald Reagan could have said it years ago when I
first came to Congress, he said, You know, a lot of things are
important around here, but there is nothing that's more important,
maybe there are some things that are as important, but nothing is more
important than our national security.
And the bipartisanship with which the Armed Services Committee, under
the leadership of both Mr. Skelton and Mr. Hunter and their
predecessors, has approached this issue is very, very important. I
would like to thank the gentleman for the great job that he's done, as
well as my friend, Ike Skelton.
Force protection is a very important element of this bill. We know
that force protection has changed a great deal because of the threat
that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan of an conventional nature.
In this bill we upgraded the funding available for the Mine-Resistant
Ambush-Protected Vehicle, the MRAP. We have $947 million to upgrade the
armor on Humvees, and $2.2 million for the Abrams tank upgrades, the
Bradley fighting vehicle, as well as the Stryker. And so we once again
put our soldiers first and are providing the protection for them that
they need.
One of my pet projects in the years that I have been on the committee
has been the moving forward of the C-17, and here again, we've got
funding or we've got authorization here for 15 additional C-17s, and
hopefully we will continue to move forward with that.
There is one area that I have a concern about in this bill, but it's
a whole lot better than it could have been when it started. Our great
friend, Neil Abercrombie, compromised with us on the Future Combat
System.
While it's important to provide force protection for today's Army,
it's also important to get ready for tomorrow's Army. And while the Air
Force, as well as the Marine Corps, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, adopted
a revolutionary system known as the V-22, which is a fixed-wing
aircraft. It can take off vertically and can fly twice as fast as a
helicopter. That was revolutionary. In the Air Force, we have
revolutionary systems, the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, which are
revolutionary because they can do things that we never dreamed that we
could do before.
The Army has been an evolutionary developer, and the FCS, the Future
Combat System, is the first, in my time here, revolutionary system
adopted by the Army. We cut the funding for the Future Combat System by
$233 million. I think that's a mistake. This is a big year for the FCS,
and in my view, we should have funded it altogether. $3.6 billion is a
lot of money. That's the total authorization for the FCS this year. A 5
or 10 percent cut may not seem much, but this is the make-it-or-break-
it year. This is the year we study the progress we've made with FCS and
decide whether to go forward with it or not. A bad year to make a cut
in my estimation.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here
tonight under these circumstances. This is a good bill. I am certainly
going to support it, and as Mr. Hunter suggested, this should be a
unanimous vote, and I urge the House to make it so.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlelady,
our friend and colleague, Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as the chairwoman of the
Military Personnel Subcommittee, I'm pleased to support H.R. 5658, the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
As my colleagues and the other subcommittee Chairs have noted and
will note, I think, as they speak, this bill is a bipartisan effort. I
want to recognize the committee chair, of course, Mr. Ike Skelton, and
the ranking member, Mr. Duncan Hunter, for their exemplary leadership.
I would also like to recognize my ranking member on the subcommittee,
Mr. McHugh, for his support. I also want to thank our dedicated staffs
on both sides of the aisle for extraordinary work.
Each year has been extremely challenging to meet all of the wishes
that we seek for those who are serving in harm's way. And this year was
certainly no exception. However, the defense bill before us continues
to enhance and improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and
their families who are bearing the brunt of 6 years of war.
Let me highlight some of the important initiatives that we address.
The committee supported the President's
[[Page 10296]]
proposal to increase end strength for the Army and Marine Corps and
restores the military to civilian conversions within the medical
community that were prohibited in last year's bill.
The bill includes a 3.9 percent pay raise which is one-half of 1
percent above both the President's budget request and private sector
raises as measured by the Employment Cost Index, the ECI. This is the
10th consecutive year of pay raises above ECI, and this raise will
further reduce the gap between military and private sector raises from
3.4 percent to 2.9 percent from a high of 13.5 percent during fiscal
year 1999.
The bill establishes a tuition-assistance program for eligible
military spouses to develop careers that are portable as they move with
their servicemember from base to base.
The bill also authorizes a career intermission pilot program that
would allow those who are seeking a military career time-off from
active duty for a period of several years in order to pursue other life
achievements.
The reserve components have moved from a strategic force to an
integral and vital part of the operational force, particularly in the
Army. The bill would increase full-time manning for the Army National
Guard to 30,450 and the Army Reserve to 17,070.
The bill prohibits TRICARE health and pharmacy fee increases proposed
in the President's budget. I'm pleased that we were successful in
finding the offsets necessary to prohibit the fee increases to protect
our military beneficiaries.
However, the committee remains concerned that the department
continues to put forward proposals that place the focus solely on our
military retirees and fails to address other cost drivers within the
system. So we must work together to find a fair and equitable solution
that protects our beneficiaries and ensures the financial viability of
the military health care system for the future. The bill begins efforts
to improve the health care readiness of our force and their families by
establishing preventive health care programs.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before the Members today is a good bill, and
Members can be proud of what we are doing for the troops and their
families.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland who is the ranking member on the Seapower and
Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my
colleagues to support the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009. As ranking member of the Seapower and
Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, I applaud the efforts of Chairman
Taylor and his staff who have done an excellent job of meeting the
needs of our sailors, aviators and marines.
I also want to thank my staff who did a great job. They helped
prepare this statement and so they modestly did not include themselves.
Thank you, staff, very much.
The bill accelerates the planned refueling complex overhaul of the
USS Theodore Roosevelt. It fully funds the next generation carrier, the
fiscal year 2009 Virginia class submarine and provides procurement for
a second Virginia class submarine in both fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
The bill also authorizes two T-AKEs and two Littoral combat ships.
There are several areas where the committee disagreed with the
President's budget requests. For example, the bill would not allow the
Navy to terminate the LPD-17 production line. The bill would slow the
pace of the DDG 1000 destroyer program while providing the Navy with
the flexibility to reevaluate its options for service combatants and
reduce risk for the next generation cruiser.
On the aviation side, the bill continues to support the alternative
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It also provides additional
funding to address emergent P-3 aircraft repair issues.
{time} 1945
With regard to Marine Corps programs, the chairman and I share
concerns and the same goals about the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
and its survivability. The Marine Corps has responded to our concerns
by making design changes that will improve its survivability by 50
percent over the baseline. But I believe that more can be done. I have
asked the chairman if we can continue to examine this bill's proposed
$40 million cut to the EFV program to ensure we achieve this important
goal.
The bill extends the committee's prior work to expand nuclear
propulsion for shipbuilding. Last year, we required the Navy to include
integrated nuclear propulsion for the next generation cruiser. This
year, the bill would require that future amphibious assault vessels
also include nuclear power.
The Navy's 2007 study on alternative energy for ship propulsion
indicated that the break-even price for nuclear propulsion for
amphibious ships was a market price of $178 per barrel of oil. We're
creeping up to that number. Oil hit a new record of $133 a barrel
today.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that several of our
colleagues, all three of them sitting in the Chamber in front of me,
are retiring at the end of this Congress. My very good friend, Duncan
Hunter; good friend, Jim Saxton; and my classmate, Terry Everett, thank
you all very much for what you have done for your country, for our
servicemen and -women. You have my deepest respect and gratitude.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, my
friend, the gentleman from Washington, who is also the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Conventional Threats and Capabilities,
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by thanking Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member
Hunter for the work they have done, not just on this bill but during
the 12 years that I've been in Congress and even before then.
Their leadership on this committee I think should be an inspiration
to all of us in the way they approach these very important issues. To
begin with, they set a tone of bipartisanship. We worked together in an
open process that I think gives us the high quality product that we
wind up with. And that's not to say that we don't disagree,
occasionally along party lines, but we do so in a very open, very
honest way, in a way that I think addresses the issues and the way that
Congress should perform. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking
Member Hunter for his time as ranking member and time as chairman as
well for doing that.
I think this year's bill is a particularly good product and
representative of that fine work. We have heard many different pieces
of it already. I just want to highlight two in the general bill.
First of all, the $2 billion in additional money that we put in to
deal with readiness, a major challenge right now for our Armed Forces,
particularly the Army and the Marines. Our forces are really under a
great deal of strain because of their deployments in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Maintaining readiness has been a major challenge and
concern, and this bill puts that concern up front and funds it in a way
that will help us begin to deal with the problem.
Also, equally as importantly, it prioritizes our troops by giving
them a 3.9 percent pay raise, to recognize the hard work and sacrifice
that they perform for us and support them in every way that we possibly
can.
With that, I want to highlight some of what we've done on our
subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats,
and Capabilities. We have four main areas that we focus on.
The first of those is the Special Operations Command over which we
have jurisdiction, and I want to pause at this moment in the general
remarks and thank Representative Saxton who, though he is not the
ranking member on this committee now, serves on the
[[Page 10297]]
committee and was the first Chair. As Representative Hunter has pointed
out, the special operations forces were a particular concern of
Representative Saxton. He has a done a great deal in our efforts to
expand that force, meet their needs and expand their capabilities, and
more than that, he has been a great Member, not just of this
subcommittee but of this committee for his career in Congress. He will
be missed, and I very much appreciated working with him.
What we have done primarily for special operations forces in the bill
this year is fund as many of their unfunded requirements as we possibly
can. They have been at an incredibly rapid tempo in Iraq and
Afghanistan and elsewhere. Continuing to fund their needs is the top
priority of our subcommittee.
The other area that we focus on is irregular warfare, and there are a
number of different pieces to this. But I think it's a critical part of
our defense bill because it is emerging as one of the most continuous
pieces of the fight, counterinsurgency efforts, counterterrorism
efforts, things that were not prior to 9/11 part of our lexicon to the
degree that they are now.
We take steps to make that a higher priority by raising it to the
Assistant Secretary level at the DOD and also by helping to fund human
terrain teams. Our subcommittee received excellent testimony about what
these human terrain teams are doing to go in and understand the culture
in Afghanistan, in Iraq. We actually employ anthropologists and others
who are experts in culture so that our forces can know who they're
dealing with when they go in. This is a critical element of what we're
working on.
We also, thirdly, focus on harnessing technological innovation. We
fund it, to begin with, $1.69 billion worth of R&D for science and
technology, and we also focus on harnessing new technologies as quickly
as possible by developing a clearinghouse for that. The procurement
process in the DOD can be a lengthy process at times. We want to get
these technologies out in the field as quickly as possible when they
are most useful.
We're also asking the Department to focus on the recruitment of IT
professionals, the people with the brains to help us with cyber
security and elsewhere. As you might guess, the DOD does not pay as
much as these people might be able to earn in the private sector. So we
have to aggressively go out there and recruit folks to make sure that
we have the top IT professionals within the DOD. Our bill focuses on
that as well.
Lastly, we focus on improving DOD's homeland defense capabilities, a
role of our subcommittee, by funding the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency and the chemical/biological defense programs and by increasing
their funds and making sure that they have what is necessary to protect
us here in the homeland, within the DOD, working in cooperation with
the Department of Homeland Security.
Again, I want to thank Representative Saxton for his work and also
Representative Thornberry, who is the ranking member on this
subcommittee. He has been great to work with, very smart, very
talented, works in a bipartisan way. All of the issues that I have just
listed have been made possible in large part because of his input. I
appreciate working with him as well.
Again, I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Hunter for the
way they run this committee. It makes me proud to be in Congress every
year I have the opportunity to serve with them.
Thank you very much.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just
spoke for his great work on this bill, and I yield for 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama, who is the ranking member on the Strategic
Subcommittee, formerly the chairman, and again a guy who has spent
thousands of hours in closed-door sessions, with no press releases
attached and no cameras present. He's a guy that's pretty easy to elbow
out of the way at a press conference because he usually isn't there.
But he has served countless hours in the service of this country,
understanding some pretty complex things about space and national
security, and he is the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Terry Everett, and
the country needs more people like this gentleman.
Mr. EVERETT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank my good
friend, Mr. Hunter, for yielding to me and thank him for his leadership
and his friendship.
I was honored that when this subcommittee was originally formed, Mr.
Hunter asked me to be the first chairman of this subcommittee. It was a
great pleasure and it's been a real love for me.
I would also say that Mr. Hunter has served this Nation and his
constituents in California with great distinction. He's served this
Nation with great distinction.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
I would also like to congratulate Strategic Forces Subcommittee
Chairman Tauscher. This subcommittee handles some very technical,
complex and sometimes controversial issues. Missile defense, space, and
nuclear weapons are difficult issues to work through. But together,
with the understanding and leadership of Chairman Tauscher, we have
developed legislation where we agree on far more than we disagree.
This year's bill contains many sound measures that provide key
capabilities to the warfighter and strengthen our strategic forces.
I am particularly pleased with the support this bill provides to
national security space. The bill addresses many important issues
including: continued awareness of the growing threat to space and
emphasis on mitigating vulnerabilities; the need to war-game and
exercise the loss of space capabilities; full funding for key
acquisition programs such as advanced extremely high frequency, WGS,
SBIRS and GPS-3, that reflect a measured approach to space acquisition;
and protection of the T-SAT budget request, while the Department
reevaluates architecture options after their decision to reduce this
program by $4 billion.
The mark makes positive strides in the area of atomic energy defense
activities by: adding funding to research enhanced surety for existing
weapons systems; and directing the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to
report on steps they are taking to enhance inventory controls for
nuclear weapons.
I am disappointed the Reliable Replacement Warhead study wasn't
directly funded. Our nuclear deterrent is aging, while the rest of the
world's nuclear powers are modernizing theirs. The commander of U.S.
Strategic Command testified that we are accepting significant future
risks with our legacy Cold War stockpile.
The American public may not realize this, but the current
administration has implemented the largest nuclear stockpile reductions
since the end of the Cold War and has an extensive non-proliferation
program to reflect the evolving proliferation threat.
A reliable, modernized nuclear stockpile that includes RRW holds the
promise of allowing us to further lower our nuclear weapons numbers,
while continuing to provide a strong deterrent for the United States
and our allies.
Our missile defense deliberations proved the most challenging. While
we agreed on many provisions, such as full support for Patriot PAC-3,
Aegis and THAAD, there are a few provisions that the minority could not
concur with.
I am deeply concerned about the 50 percent cut to European missile
defense contained in the bill. I believe this sends the wrong signal to
our allies and emboldens Iran.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. EVERETT. While Congress puts the brakes on this effort to protect
the American people, our forward-deployed forces, and our allies, Iran
has stepped on the accelerator. Iran continues to: expand its arsenal
of short- and longer-range ballistic missiles, install advanced
centrifuges to enrich uranium, and evade questions on past nuclear
weapons research.
[[Page 10298]]
Our NATO allies recognize this threat and, in April 2008, provided
unanimous endorsement of the European missile defense proposal. In a
few weeks, the Czech Republic plans to sign agreements with the U.S. to
host the missile tracking radar.
This is a critical time for the U.S. to continue its leadership. In
addition to NATO, we have key allies such as Israel and Japan who are
relying on U.S. commitments to missile defense. I am, therefore,
disappointed that the committee would not accept my amendment to
restore funding to this effort, particularly after significant progress
is being made to meet the conditions outlined in last year's
legislation.
As the Secretary General of NATO said at a speech on May 5, ``In
tomorrow's uncertain world, we cannot wait for threats to mature before
deciding how to counter them.''
I also remain concerned about China's actions in space. According to
the Pentagon's annual China military report, its undeclared and
unexplained January 2007 anti-satellite test is only one part of a
larger Chinese counterspace program to prevent the use of space. Thus,
I was strongly disappointed and troubled that my amendment to direct an
independent study to examine the feasibility of space-based defense
concepts was not supported in our committee markup. Such a system might
also provide another layer of defense against ballistic missile
threats.
In the final analysis, there is far more in this bill that we agree
on than disagree on.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has again expired.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. EVERETT. I would, however, caution Members from further reducing
funding for missile defense. These programs have already been cut by
over $700 million. Any further reductions to these important programs
would have very detrimental effects to our national defense.
I think the programs in our subcommittee's jurisdiction are some of
the most exciting things our Nation does. It is important that we not
lose sight of the vital role our space, missile defense, and nuclear
deterrent capabilities play in our national security.
I would like to thank the other members of the subcommittee and the
staff for their hard work in making this bill a quality product. I
intend to support it, and I ask the Members to support it.
Again, I would like to congratulate Chairman Tauscher for the work
that she's done on making this a very good mark, and also I'd like to
congratulate my good friend Ike Skelton for his leadership.
{time} 2000
Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is also the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.
Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, and quite
possibly the best committee chairman we've had on the House Armed
Services Committee in my 20 years, Chairman Ike Skelton.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5658, the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2009. The bill before the House today represents
the strong bipartisan effort of the House Armed Services Committee
under the leadership of our very capable chairman, Ike Skelton.
For Navy and Marine Corps programs, this bill recommends several
initiatives not in the administration's budget request that we believe
will enhance the ability of the sea services to protect our Nation.
These initiatives include:
Full funding for the eight ships in the President's request, with
authorization to build an additional four.
The funds for $1.8 billion to fully fund a 10th LPD class amphibious
assault ship, a vessel that is the number one priority of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
We would pause the DDG 1000 program to allow the Chief of Naval
Operations the flexibility to restore the production of the DDG-51
class destroyers, or continue the 1000 program.
Advanced procurement funding for long lead components to accelerate
the production of Virginia class submarines to two per year beginning
in fiscal year 2010 instead of fiscal year 2011.
Authorization for the final two vessels in the Lewis and Clark T-AKE
dry cargo ammunition ship class.
$14.6 billion for the procurement of 206 aircraft, including eight
Joint Strike Fighters, 45 F/A-18 series aircraft, 30 Marine Corps MV-
22s, 49 MH-60 series helicopters, 44 T-6 JPATS training aircraft, and
two KC 130J cargo aircraft.
We would include $247 million for the continued funding of the Joint
Strike Fighter competitive engine program; $448 million for emergent
aircraft wing repairs to the P-3C fleet of reconnaissance aircraft.
We also include important legislative proposals that would direct the
Secretary of the Navy to design and construct the next class of
amphibious warships with an integrated nuclear power system.
Mr. Chairman, today the price of oil went to approximately $130 a
barrel. Less than half of the oil that our Nation uses is produced
within the United States of America. It makes no sense at all, you have
aircraft carriers that could go 30 years without refueling, if those
ships that support our aircraft carriers have to refuel every 3 to 5
days.
We would authorize the commencement of the complex refueling overhaul
of the USS Roosevelt. We would authorize economic inflation adjustments
to the statutory cost cap of the Littoral combat ship based on the
realities of cost escalations in the materials to build those ships.
We would require accountability of obligations in the National
Defense Sealift Fund. I want to thank one of our new Members, Admiral
Sestak, for helping to make that happen.
For the committee's oversight of the activities of the Maritime
Administration of the Department of Transportation, we authorize the
request for funding the Maritime Security Program, the Vessel Disposal
Program, and the operations and maintenance included in the Merchant
Marine Academy.
We would authorize $30 million for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan
Program, commonly referred to as title XI loans. We would authorize the
Secretary of Transportation to increase student initiative payments at
the various State maritime academies.
And we would prohibit the transfer of government-owned vessels for
the purpose of scrapping or dismantling in foreign shipyards.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank my good friend and ranking
member, the gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett. I
have been honored to have him as my working business partner. He has
been a great partner in helping to rebuild our Nation's fleet.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of this bill.
I now recognize the gentleman from Maine for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss an important subject, the
fine men and women of Bath Iron Works, one of two shipyards in my
district.
These skilled men and women are a national asset and the reason for
our proud slogan that ``Bath built is best built.'' It is on their
behalf I would like to ask the gentleman about the committee mark for
the DDG 1000 program.
Mr. TAYLOR. I appreciate the gentleman's questions. I would remind
the gentleman, and all Members of this body, that from the earlier days
of our Republic we have had at least six major naval shipyards. In the
early days, there was concern that maybe the British or the French may
come back and reoccupy our country. In the case of the Washington Navy
Yard, they did. It made sense then, it made sense now.
I am committed to the industrial base of those yards that build our
surface combatants, both in Maine and on the gulf coast. The DDG-51 has
been a phenomenal platform.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ellison). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
[[Page 10299]]
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. The 51 has been a proven platform; we've had over 50 of
those ships constructed. It has turned out to be a bargain for the
taxpayer.
I do have concerns about the DDG 1000 program and some possible cost
overruns associated with it. That is why for the stability of the fleet
and for the purposes of trying to get the fleet up to 313 ships, we are
going to give the Chief of Naval Operations the option of either
pursuing the third DDG 1000, or DDG-51s, keeping in mind that the Navy
can buy two DDG-51s for the price of every 1000.
Mr. ALLEN. It is my understanding that the committee is on record for
full funding of any vessels in fiscal year 2010 that the Navy decides
to build using fiscal 2009 advanced procurement funding which is
provided in this bill.
Mr. TAYLOR. Again, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman.
You said this, but it's also my understanding that the committee is
giving the Navy the option of either shifting back to the DDG-51
program or continuing with the DDG 1000 program; is that right?
Mr. TAYLOR. That's correct. And I would also remind the gentleman
that we are working with the Chief of Naval Operations. He has come to
us with a proposal. To extend the life of one of our oldest carriers,
he would have to spend approximately $2 billion to get an additional 6
months out of that carrier. We are working with the Chief of Naval
Operations to give him the option of, instead of spending $2 billion to
get an additional 6 months, of taking that $2 billion and applying that
money towards an additional surface combatant. And that would certainly
help the fleet, and I think it would certainly help Bath Shipyard.
Mr. ALLEN. I appreciate the explanation of the gentleman. And I look
forward to working with him to ensure that our Navy gets the finest
warship that our combined shipyards can provide.
Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank the chairman. And I want to encourage all
the Members of this body to support the House authorization.
Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank the gentleman who chairs the Seapower
Subcommittee for the great work that he has done and turn to another
gentleman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has served for
many years, first as chairman, and then ranking member of this very
important Personnel Subcommittee which oversees the policies of those
2.5 million Americans who serve in uniform. The gentleman from New York
has done a great job, and I would like to yield 4 minutes to Mr.
McHugh.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman from California for his gracious
comments.
Let me start off by returning the favor. This is a monumental bill if
for no other reason than it bears the name of the gentleman from
California, Duncan Hunter. It also is a bill that represents the
departure of two other very senior members of the Defense Committee,
the great gentleman from New Jersey, Jim Saxton, and my classmate,
Terry Everett, from the great State of Alabama. All three of these
gentlemen have served this committee in the grade tradition in which it
is steeped so deeply, and that is of bipartisanship, and of the focus
that the important thing, the only thing is to field the finest
military the world has ever seen. And through their collective service,
they have, indeed, done that.
I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished
chairman, for moving the resolution that ultimately named this bill
after my dear friend, my great leader, Duncan Hunter, but also, I
think, forms the basis of what can only be described as a very, very
good bill.
To Chairwoman Davis, the gentlelady with whom I have deeply enjoyed
serving, I want to commend her for bringing to the floor tonight a
Personnel piece, a mark that is predicated upon bipartisanship,
predicated upon openness. And I thank her for allowing all of us,
myself, of course, but equally, if not more importantly, the other
members of the subcommittee and the full committee on both sides of the
aisle, the opportunity to have meaningful input to its outcome.
You heard her talk very eloquently, very adequately, very reasonably
and correctly about the very, very positive provisions of this
Personnel mark. Increases end strength, something this subcommittee has
been working on for a number of years to relieve the pressure on those
men and women who step forward, who have paid the price of stop loss,
who have paid the price of extended deployments. This will help them
immeasurably.
The active role of the Army Guard and Reserve and their role in this,
so important, the increases to that.
The pay increases that continue the efforts that we had begun some
years ago, where the pay gap between the private and the military
sectors was 13 percent and has now been taken below 3 percent, that we
intend, I hope, collectively, to fully continue education and training
opportunities for military spouses, recognizing they are part of this
battle as well.
From impact aid to survivor indemnity allowances to TRICARE fees, and
on and on and on, this is a bill that every Member of this House
should, and I deeply hope will, support.
I said this is a very, very good bill. In all honesty, it could have
been a great bill. It could have been a great bill except for a number
of important, but I think insufficient, responses to the challenges we
had.
A problem that I faced, when I had the honor of being the chairman of
the Personnel Subcommittee, was predicated upon the administration's, I
would maintain, ill-advised proposal to begin the necessary path toward
reforming the cost of military health care on the backs of the
recipients. They have proposed it again this year.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DUNCAN. I yield 2 additional minutes.
Mr. McHUGH. It was a serious challenge that was resolved in a way
that I can honestly say can only be described as a budgetary gimmick.
Rather than using all the tools available to it, the Democratic
leadership--not the leadership on this committee, but the Democrat
leadership of this House--chose, instead, to take from the retirees,
those who have already served, a hit of 1 percent of one month of their
retiree pay. They had other options and tools available to them, and I
honestly believe they took the easy way. I hope we can, from this point
forward, use the opportunity of conference and discussion with the
administration and, of course, with the Senate to find a better
resolution.
Also, I think the fact that the House Budget Resolution that was
supposed to be passed today, but I assume will be passed in the very
near future, offered a hope, offered the opportunity for the Budget
chairman to make decisions about reallocations to address such things
as the widows tax, to address other kinds of problems, were not
utilized. And we lost a very important opportunity that, whatever one
may think about the Democrat Budget Resolution, provided for the first
time hope, provided for the first time opportunity, and that has been
squandered. Still, in the days ahead, I think we can take this very,
very good bill and elevate it to a great bill.
For the purposes of tonight, however, for the purposes of those who
worked hard on it, the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman from
California, all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, this
is a bill that reflects, in very fine form, the bipartisan approach of
one of the grandest committees, one of the most important committees
under the Constitution this House has ever created, the Armed Services
Committee, and it deserves our support.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I recognize, for purposes of a unanimous
consent request, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5658,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
The United States military is unmatched. I therefore maintain that
the defense-industrial complex follows a misguided strategy of buying
weapons that provide Americans with no increased safety.
[[Page 10300]]
We need to provide for the traditional sense of security by first
ensuring economic security, health security, and job security for all.
The roots of terrorism begin not in hatred, but in desperation. All
people, no matter their ethnicity, seek the basic necessities such as
food, clothes, shelter, good health, and the ability to earn a decent
living. If you can level this playing field, there is no desperation
that may potentially evolve into radical hatred.
I will support a defense budget that matches real threats to our
security with appropriate defensive measures. Our foreign policy should
promote economic stability worldwide, thereby eliminating the roots of
terrorism, which stem from desperation. This bill does the opposite by
continuing policies of fear and aggression.
The advocates of advanced weapons systems fail to understand these
new systems do not match up an effective defense capability with the
terrorist threats. Only a new approach to foreign policy can
effectively mitigate the terrorist threat.
The ever-rising cost of our military is not financially sustainable.
Since 2001 this body has appropriated over $700 billion for all war-
related expenses. This bill will provide an additional $70 billion in
emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as we
know, the Administration is asking for hundreds of billions of
additional funds that this body is expected to consider in the near
future.
Now more than ever it is clear that this Administration's occupation
and reconstruction of Iraq has failed. The war, waged under false
pretenses, has decimated Iraq. Destruction has permeated most of the
country. War has taken a very heavy, very real toll. There is
increasing concern that militias in Iraq are arising to meet the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. I have urged this body to stop
this illegal war. We must honor our troops by bringing them home. I
cannot support any measure that continues the illegal occupation of
Iraq and continues to undercut our nation's credibility.
The greatest tragedy of this war is the 4,080 American soldiers that
have been killed. Tens of thousands more have been injured. Estimates
conclude that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the
U.S. invasion.
Furthermore, the claimed ballistic missile threat is grossly
exaggerated. Terrorists do not possess ballistic missiles and the few
nation states that do have such missiles have no desire to face the
retaliation of our ballistic missiles.
Accordingly, I thank the Committee for undercutting the President's
request of $954 million for the European Ground-Based Mid-Course
Defense (GMD) program. However, this bill still authorizes $582 million
for the European GMD despite a lack of assurance that the system will
work or make our national more safe. Funding for the European GMD
should be removed entirely.
The Administration claims the system is necessary to defend the U.S.
from a long-range ballistic missile attack from Iran. However, Iran is
unlikely to pose such a threat to the United States in the foreseeable
future due to the immense technical difficulties that Iran would have
to overcome to create a long-range ballistic missile capable of
reaching the U.S.
In fact, it is conceivable that the U.S. will have its own technical
difficulties to overcome before such a system can be proven viable. The
Test and Evaluation department of the Pentagon cautions that many more
tests under realistic conditions would be needed before conceding our
capability to shoot down an offensive missile.
The citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland clearly reject the
proposed agreement. Public opinion polls in the Czech Republic and
Poland reflect strong opposition to the placement of the radar and
interceptors in their respective countries and strained their relations
with Russia. The GMD proposal has by some accounts exacerbated U.S.-
Russia relations. The U.S. has shared information but not meaningfully
cooperated with Russia in these negotiations. Because the Czech
Republic and Poland fall within the boundaries of former Russian
influence, U.S. action with regard to the GMD have been perceived by
Russia as an intrusion. There can be no doubt that U.S. efforts to
impose the GMD are perceived as an obstruction to the diplomatic ties
between our nations.
A total of $9.3 billion will go to the Department of Energy for
nuclear weapons activities, $1.455 billion of these funds will wisely
go to Nonproliferation programs and I thank my colleagues for their
work to increase these programs by $208 million above the President's
request. However, this still leaves roughly $7.9 billion that supports
and maintains nuclear stockpiles.
The U.S. Administration has established a record of unilateralism and
that undercuts our nation's credibility in the eyes of other nations.
In just under eight years the U.S. Administration had backtracked on
international treaties and conventions. The U.S. has rejected the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to sign the Land Mine Treaty,
withdrawn from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, unsigned the Kyoto
Protocol, and blocked a verification protocol for the Biological
Weapons Convention. It is time for the U.S. to uphold international
law. It is time for the U.S. to stand for dialogue and diplomacy. It is
time for the United States to rethink our policies and set upon a new
strategy of strength through peace.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentlelady from
California, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the chairman.
I was very much in the wrong for failing to mention the great work of
your committee staff, headed by Ms. Conaton, and in particular Captain
Will Ebbs of the Seapower Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
for correcting my mistake. I do want to very much compliment the men
and women of the House Armed Services Committee staff who have helped
put this package together.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who is also a senior
member of the Armed Services Committee.
{time} 2015
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I wish to thank Chairman Skelton
for his hard work and leadership in developing this important piece of
legislation.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say to the gentlemen who are
retiring this year, I think just on the top row of our committee, we
are probably losing collectively about 65 years of experience on this
committee, and it has been my pleasure over the last 12 years to serve
on this committee with you all, and you will sorely be missed and the
institutional knowledge that you carry will be missed also. So we have
a lot of good colleagues who are leaving the Congress this year.
This legislation provides critical support to our Armed Forces
through many important initiatives. I'm proud that the legislation, for
example, provides a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for the
members of our services. And in addition, H.R. 5658 prohibits the
implementation of the President's proposals to increase health care co-
pays and cost sharing for beneficiaries of the TRICARE health care and
pharmacy services.
This bill also takes a step in providing for the first time ever the
military preventative health care programs, which will improve the
lives of our servicemembers, of our retirees, and family members.
Preventative health care has been proven to improve individuals' long-
term health and to provide substantial cost savings since healthier
people require less medical service. And I'm very pleased that
Chairwoman Davis proposed this innovative health care program and that
it is also paid for.
This bill also includes several proposals that I sought to have
included. And as the ranking woman on the Armed Services Committee, I
am proud that one of these provisions establishes a centralized case-
level database of information about sexual assaults that involve our
servicemembers. The database will be consistent with all privacy
guidelines and restrictions while tracking information about the nature
of assaults and the outcome of any legal proceedings in connection with
the assault.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very
important step towards ensuring accountability for sexual assaults
involving our servicemembers.
I'm also very proud that per my request this bill requires the
Department of Defense to conduct a study of its bandwidth needs for the
near and long term. This study will help us ensure that the department
has the capability to operate the advanced information technology
systems that our military relies on.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It really is a great bill.
And thank
[[Page 10301]]
you to all of our Chair people and ranking members for having made it
such a great bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my
colleague and friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The
bill before us today reflects our concern about the continuing decline
in the readiness posture of our Armed Forces.
And I would like to thank the ranking member of my subcommittee, Mr.
Forbes from Virginia, for his help in bringing together this excellent
bill. He played a very key role and was very instrumental in putting
the readiness and military construction bill together. I would like to
say thank you for a great job.
Also, Chairman Skelton.
And my good friend who is going to be retiring soon. Duncan, you and
I have gone through a lot. Thank you for all the work that you've done,
and we hope to continue on.
More than 6 years of continuous combat operations have strained
readiness. This strain is manifesting itself in more aspects of our
military forces. The bill authorizes $143 million for operation and
maintenance. To address the readiness shortfalls in equipment,
training, and maintenance, we have added $932 million to the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Reserve operations
and maintenance accounts.
In addition, we have added funds for Army training, pre-positioned
stocks, and aircraft maintenance in our authorization of the fiscal
year 2009 supplemental.
In response to the Defense Department's increasing reliance on
contractor services, this bill requires a comprehensive analysis of
what constitutes an ``inherently governmental function.'' It requires
the Office of Management and Budget to develop a single definition that
may be used consistently by all Federal agencies.
The bill includes provisions to address civilians deployed in combat
zones. It gives DOD authority to extend the waiver of limitations on
premium pay. It also asks for a thorough review of the medical policies
and treatment procedures for civilians deployed to support military
operations.
To address depot workloads following equipment reset, the bill
requires the Department of Defense to contract for an independent
assessment of the depot capability that will be needed in the future.
The bill takes several actions related to energy and environmental
policy. It authorizes $80 million for energy conservation projects and
updates installation energy reporting requirements.
For military construction, base realignment, and closure and family
housing in fiscal year 2009, the bill authorizes more than $24 billion.
The bill includes several provisions related to BRAC. In the time
since the 2005 BRAC Commission reported its recommendations, we have
seen costs increase almost 50 percent and the savings have declined. If
a future administration were to request a new round of closures, the
BRAC process will need to be dramatically different. As such, this
year's bill repeals the BRAC Commission and the process that arrived at
the 2005 decisions. At the same time, we remain steadfast to completing
the 2005 BRAC round on time, by September, 2011, and have fully funded
the administration's request.
To address our alarm at finding our troops in run-drown and broken
barracks, the bill directs that $500 million in the fiscal year 2009
supplemental be used to arrest the declining state of military
facilities.
The bill also does many good things for South Texas, which I
represent. I am pleased that the replacement of the main production
facility at Corpus Christi Army Depot was authorized. Corpus Christi
Army Depot is the cornerstone of aviation readiness for the Department
of Defense. It is vital that the current outdated facility be replaced
so that dedicated employees of Corpus Christi Army Depot can continue
to deliver products to the military in the most efficient and timely
manner.
I support H.R. 5658, and I am proud of what this bill does to restore
strength to our military. This is a very responsible bill. However, I'm
disappointed that our committee adopted an amendment to provide the
Department of Defense funding for the southwest border wall. I hope
that in the future, defense funding will not be used to build walls.
That said, this is a good bill. The chairman of the full committee
and the ranking member have done an outstanding job.
Randy Forbes, thank you for your dedication and your input.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the great
gentleman from Texas for his hard work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry), who has done a great job in working through the very
difficult issues of the Terrorism Subcommittee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first let me express my gratitude and
my admiration for those senior members of the committee who are leaving
Congress, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett); the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and the gentleman from California, our former
Chair (Mr. Hunter), for whom this bill is appropriately named. It has
certainly been an honor for me to work with and to learn from each of
them over the years as they worked to protect the country's security.
Mr. Chairman, the portion of this bill produced by the Terrorism and
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which has been
very ably led by Chairman Smith, I think is worthy of all Members'
support. It enables the Special Operations command forces to remain on
the cutting edge of our fight against terrorists with the equipment and
the resources and the authorities that they need. This portion of the
bill supports the research activities at DARPA and at the individual
services, which are the foundation of our future military and therefore
the foundation of our future security. This portion of the bill makes
decisions in a host of other areas from information technology to chem-
bio defense and force protection, and I think it makes good decisions.
I want to say I also appreciate particularly the comments of Chairman
Skelton regarding the importance of the inter-agency process and the
efforts of him and Chairman Smith on strategic communications. Both of
those things are absolutely essential for the fight against terrorists
as well as for the country's broader security.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill, and as others have said,
it deserves full support in this House. I don't think you can bring a
bill to the floor, however, that looks after the country's national
security and particularly a portion that talks about terrorists without
acknowledging that this Congress is about to go on recess without doing
two of the most important things that it could do in the fight against
terrorists and to protect our country's security.
It seems this week we have had time to debate a bill to pay
foreigners to take care of potentially rare dogs and cats. We have had
time to debate and vote on a bill to commemorate Frank Sinatra. But we
have not had time this week to debate and vote on a clean supplemental
that can become law that will fund the troops who are actually on the
front lines of this fight. We have not had time, we have not been able
to vote, on the Senate FISA modernization bill, which is absolutely
essential both for the troops and for protecting us here at home.
So this is a good bill. This committee has done good work. But I
think it challenges all of us in this broader fight against terrorists
to do all of our work and to do all that is our responsibility to
defend the country, and I hope we do.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), ranking member of
Oversight.
Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Congressman Hunter, for yielding. Let me just
take
[[Page 10302]]
a moment to thank you also for your great leadership on this committee
through the many years. What a fantastic teacher you've been to some of
the newer members. I'm so thankful for your leadership, your patience.
And also the gentleman from Mr. Everett's district, Mr. Saxton, great
leadership.
Then I would also like to say, Chairman Skelton, thank you very much.
You make the people from Missouri proud for the way that you've
continued the good tone of the committee. I think it was really a
classy thing to name this bill after Congressman Hunter, and it just
shows the quality of leadership that you've provided, and so I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well.
As the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Dr. Snyder has
been doing a great job. We've had a chance to look into a number of
different subjects, particularly progress in the reconstruction efforts
in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill contains some of the things that we
discovered particularly in the importance of Provincial Reconstruction
Teams and the important work that's been done on that subcommittee.
I would just like to say that there's a lot of criticism of Congress.
In fact, I think our popularity rating publicly is maybe not too good.
But on the other hand, I think what the public would really like to see
is they'd like to see us stop bickering and just plain solve some
programs. I think this committee and the subcommittees have been
largely a good example of that, and that's because of the tone of the
leadership that we've seen.
As others have before, I have my opinions about how this bill could
be improved, and there are several areas that I am concerned with. The
first are the significant cuts to missile defense and particularly the
missile defense that needs to be built in Poland and the Czech
Republic. I believe that that missile defense is critical for the
defense of our country from Iran and also some Western European nations
from Iran.
{time} 2030
I think it's the wrong time to be cutting missile defense. We have
just had a very successful demonstration of this technology, as we shot
down a rogue satellite that had a lot of hydrazine in the fuel tank,
and we were able to get rid of that threat very effectively.
So aside from missile defense, there's one other area that I am
distressed about, and that is the only comprehensive major Army
modernization program in the last 30 or 40 years, which we now know as
Future Combat System. That has also had a number of hundred million
dollars removed from it. It's something we have discussed in committee.
I think it's a wrong decision. Next year, we are going to make a go or
no-go on this overall program, and to be continuing to slash and cut
away at that budget, I think, is counterproductive.
This said, my only other complaint is there's just not enough money
in this budget to fund defense the way I wish we could. But if there
are constituents who would like to see people who are just rolling up
their sleeves and solving problems, all they need to do is come to the
authorizing committee of the Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Air and Land Forces.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to serve as the
chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services
Committee. I would like first to thank my own personal archbishop, Doug
Roach, and all the acolytes on the Air and Land subcommittee, the
subcommittee staff. They do a terrific job working with Ike Skelton's
overall staff, led by Erin. I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is
every day to be working with them in the manner in which they conduct
themselves; professional, disciplined, focused, something I wish I
could say about myself more often than I do.
Again, on the personal comment side, I want to thank my good friend,
Duncan Hunter. Always, without fail, in all these years, attentive,
polite, always welcoming commentary and seeking advice. We may say
farewell to you, Duncan, but we will not be saying goodbye.
Finally, Mr. Jim Saxton, whom I don't see on the floor today. Jim
Saxton may have his position taken, but no one is going to replace him
in this Congress. He has been my friend. He has been my mentor. I have
served as a ranking member on various committees, not just here, but on
other committees, as well as having the opportunity to chair. I never
considered myself a ranking member or a chairman where Jim Saxton was
concerned. We were colleagues.
This bill is about balancing the capabilities and readiness of our
current military forces with future required military capabilities. Our
military personnel is at risk each and every day. The first priority is
to make sure the men and women in uniform are properly supported by
ensuring our military programs adequately support current military
requirements.
We cannot short-change our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in their
need for adequate equipment and the needs of our National Guard units
here at home for what they may require to respond to potential national
disasters. Promised future capabilities that have already been delayed
because of overly optimistic and unmet schedules cannot subsume meeting
today's demonstrated needs.
The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes $90
billion in Army and Air Force programs. Our objective, Mr. Chairman, is
clear, to ensure that our military personnel get the best available
equipment as soon as it has been properly tested, equipment like
armored vehicles, body armor, improvised explosive device jammers,
unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, and night vision devices.
We address key requirements: An increase in Army procurement and
research of $557 million over the budget request, procurement and
research where it's needed now, demonstrating the commitment of the
Armed Services Committee to meeting these many needs. The Army in
particular is carrying the heaviest burden of all the services in the
war in which we are now engaged. This bill shifts funding to critical
Army priorities now; $2.6 billion to fund sustainments costs for the
tactical vehicle referred to as the MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected Vehicle, to better protect our personnel against mines and
improvised explosive devices; $2.7 billion for counterimprovised
explosive device programs, $949 million for Humvees, $783 million for
body armor; $800 million for funding for much-needed National Guard and
Reserve equipment.
Yes, we have reallocated funds in this budget where we have to meet
the needs of the serving Army and Air Force today.
Fifteen C-17 strategic airlift aircraft added, at a cost of $3.9
billion dollars. It maintains the C-17 production line and sustains the
strategic airlift fleet. Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine
program has been funded for $526 million to provide necessary
competition of two producers of engines for that program; $246 million
added for systems to counter rocket and mortar attacks on our forces.
To fund these priorities, we had to make reallocation choices to fund
the highest priorities. Some programs will have to make adjustments. No
program is adversely compromised. On the contrary, increased
accountability and increased oversight are the result.
In closing, I want to thank the distinguished chairman, all the
ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittees, and may I
say, Mr. Skelton, as I close, that it is a particular pleasure and an
honor to serve with you. As I stand here today, I am thinking of Suzie
Skelton. I know how proud she is of you.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the gentleman
from Hawaii for his excellent work, and I want to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), who is the ranking member of
the Readiness Subcommittee.
[[Page 10303]]
Mr. FORBES. It's my pleasure to rise in strong support of this bill
tonight. I also want to express my feelings about what a rare moment
this is in Congress when you can have a committee like this where the
members on both sides of the aisle have such friendships, where they
are able to work together in a bipartisan solution to defend this
country, and where they can pass a bill of this magnitude unanimously,
and that is due in large measure to the leadership of our chairman,
Chairman Skelton, also to the leadership of our ranking member, Duncan
Hunter, and to the chairman of our Readiness subcommittee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
We've heard a lot of people today talk about the great leadership of
Duncan Hunter. The truth is that we could stand here all night and we
wouldn't say enough because there is and has been no greater champion
for the men and women that we have in uniform and for the national
defense of this country than Duncan Hunter. Duncan, we appreciate your
great work.
This is a good bill. This bill provides more than $550 million in
funding above the President's request to address much-needed equipment,
repairs, and maintenance that will particularly help the National Guard
and the Reserves. When you add that to the additional depot maintenance
provided in the bill, it's a great step towards restoring readiness.
Additionally, the bill provide $650 million to increase funding to
repair aging barracks for the Army and Marine Corps. We also send a
clear message that this committee and this Congress is going to fully
fund and implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round by the
September, 2011 deadline, and we are not going to forget the
communities that are impacted by BRAC, especially those that will have
large increases of students because we are going to provide the new
Federal education funds immediately rather than making them wait for
the next year.
While so many of the provisions make this a good bill, there are two
points where I think we can do better, and I hope we do so in the
conference with the Senate. In the first case, this bill explicitly
prohibits public-private competition for 3 years, competitions that
could have saved the military billions of dollars and avoided costs
which they could use for additional weapons, additional personnel,
additional benefits. The government does not have a monopoly on good
ideas. If a company can prove in a fair and open competition that it
can do the government's work for less, that company should have the
opportunity.
In the second case, there is a very well-intended provision to ensure
we have world class facilities at the new Naval Medical Center in
Bethesda, Maryland, and at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Unfortunately, the
more we have learned about the impact of this provision, the more I am
concerned that it would result in broken construction contracts and
delays that would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in redesign
and construction costs, with no tangible benefit to our servicemen and
women.
With those exceptions, I am extremely proud of this bill, and I urge
all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill, as it will do much to
restore the readiness of our military.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations.
Mr. SNYDER. Power, Mr. Chairman, is the goal of a good defense bill
for this country. Every nation wants to be powerful enough to keep
safe. Not every dispute, however, is resolved by military power, not
every hope for the future is achieved by military power. Power is more
than just military power. It's economic, diplomatic, the moral
authority that a nation has.
Secretary Robert Gates, our Secretary of Defense, has done, I think,
two very admirable things as Secretary of Defense. One, he has restored
the confidence in the decision-making process in the Pentagon. Second,
he has pointed to the broad aspects of power for this country. We are
all very familiar with his speech to Kansas State back in November of
last year, in which he called for dramatic increases, not in the
Defense Department, but dramatic increases in the State Department,
dramatic increases in budget, dramatic increases in staff.
He called for the staff and funding for the USAID, the Agency for
International Development. Mr. Skelton arranged for Secretary Gates and
Secretary Rice to testify before our full Armed Services Committee on
the importance of interagency communication and collaboration, not just
within the Pentagon, but between the State Department and the Defense
and USAID and the other agencies in the government because it is
important to our national defense, to our overall concept of power, not
just military power.
Well, this bill contains some provisions that deal with some of these
issues. First of all, some time ago this body, the House, passed H.R.
1084, Representative Sam Farr's bill, that came out of the Foreign
Affairs Committee. It deals with the whole issue of establishing a
Civilian Reserve Board to deal with the fact that we sometimes need
civilian employees to go into areas of instability and even of war. But
we haven't been able to have the kind of personnel we wanted and the
numbers in the time that we need.
So we passed this bill, but it's been hung up in the Senate by one
Senator. So just by unanimous agreement of the Democrats and
Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and with the consent and
advocacy of Mr. Berman, that was included as part of this bill,
unchanged from how it was passed before, and so it will now have a
second chance to go to the Senate and be passed.
I am also looking forward to the fact that tomorrow, Mr. Skelton,
along with Mr. Berman and Ms. Lowey, will be introducing an amendment
that will establish a standing advisory panel on improving integration
between the Department of Defense, Department of State, and the United
States Agency for International Development on matters of national
security.
I will always remember one of my constituents, a veterinarian from
Arkansas, who served in both Afghanistan and then a year in Iraq. She
sent me an e-mail about halfway through her year in Iraq, in which she
said, and we were talking about this issue of interagency cooperation,
she said, I sometimes think and feel that the differences in divisions
between the agencies of the United States Government are greater than
the differences between us and the Iraqis. That is saying something in
terms of inhibiting our ability to have the kind of national defense we
want. So I applaud Mr. Berman and Mr. Skelton and Ms. Lowey for doing
this amendment.
This bill is about military families, it's about our men and women in
uniform. We do a lot of things in this bill for military families in
great detail. But it's also time for this country, and I hope it will
occur in our Presidential debate that will be going on over the next
several months, but it certainly needs to occur in this Congress and in
our committee. It's time to step back and look at the big picture. What
should the grand national security strategy involving all components of
our power, and all the threats out there, what should the grand
strategy be for this country to face and achieve over the next 5 years
and 10 years and 15 and 20 years. Chairman Skelton and I and
Subcommittee Chairman Akin and I have been talking about these issues
and hope to start some efforts to look at these big pictures.
Finally, I want to commend both Chairman Skelton, but the three
Republican Members that are leaving us. Duncan Hunter, who, when former
Chairman Floyd Spence was ill, stepped in as the acting chairman with a
great generous spirit and in a very graceful manner to take over for
our beloved and ailing Floyd Spence, and then also serve with
distinction as chairman, and perhaps partly because of his fine
military service as a young man. Mr. Everett, we will be missing his
contributions.
I finally want to say a word about Jim Saxton of New Jersey because I
[[Page 10304]]
was his ranking member when I think it was Speaker Hastert established
a panel on terrorism.
{time} 2045
Before there was ever a September 11, 2001, Jim Saxton was leading a
series of classified briefings and hearings on the threat of terrorism
and the threat of al Qaeda, long before any of us learned to pronounce
the phrase ``al Qaeda,'' and I commend him for the work that he has
done. I would just say that I think this is a great bill and applaud
the work.
Mr. SKELTON. Let me add, if I may, an additional 30 seconds, Mr.
Chairman. The gentleman spoke about the need to study strategy. After
we passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, I chaired a panel on
professional military education that did a great deal in upgrading the
Senior and Immediate War Colleges. The Senior War Colleges really are
the bosom of where strategic thought, both military as well as
diplomatic, is taught and is learned. Sometimes the lessons that are so
plain to those in the War Colleges do not seem to be learned by others
in responsible positions. That is why I think the thought of working on
strategic thought itself is an excellent one, and I commend the
gentleman.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the last gentleman who spoke, I want to
thank him for his kind words. But I am reminded that the chairman has
been the guardian of professional military education and his work has
been to try to make sure that our officers have a context in which they
can place the activities in this very real war that many of them are
engaged in in our history and to see situations that have gone before
and to gain insights from that history, and I want to applaud the
chairman for that.
I want to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman who has been a great
worker on this committee and a leader, a guy who has moved over from
the Rules Committee, finally traded up and got back to the Armed
Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. I want to thank Chairman
Skelton, Ranking Member Hunter, and my subcommittee chairman, Neil
Abercrombie, and Ranking Member Jim Saxton, for their tireless efforts
on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who continue to
bravely defend us at both home and abroad.
While it is not a perfect bill, this legislation covers a wide scope
of issues that are of vital importance to the armed services, both the
active and reserve component, and it clearly addresses the most
pressing needs of our troops in the most trying times that we face in
America.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Armed Services Committee voted
unanimously and on a bipartisan basis to support another program
critical to our national security. Section 943 of this bill states that
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, WHINSEC, is
one of the most effective mechanisms that the United States has to
build relationships with future leaders throughout our hemisphere and
influence the human rights and democracy trajectory of countries in
Latin America and the Caribbean and mitigate the growing influence of
non-hemispheric powers.
It is especially important to remember that WHINSEC may be the only
medium we ever have to engage the future military and political leaders
of Latin American countries, who are, by the way, America's closest
neighbors and can serve as our closest allies. If we were not to engage
with these nations, the void would be filled by countries with starkly
different values than our own regarding democracy, and, yes, human
rights, and I am talking about countries like Venezuela and China,
whose influence in the region, as we know, is growing.
The WHINSEC school in Columbus, Georgia, at Fort Benning, the home of
the infantry, was formerly part of my congressional district. I am very
proud to continue to serve on the Board of Visitors of the school.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to further mention how pleased I am of the
work of the committee this year to authorize funding for 20 F-22
Raptors in line with the current multiyear contract, and also to
authorize the advanced procurement funds needed for a follow-on lot in
2010. The F-22 is the world's most capable fighter, and these funds go
a long way towards providing stability for our forces and ensuring that
America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future.
There is so much to be proud of in this bill, and I again commend
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their efforts to keep
this bill focused on the needs of the warfighter. I would also like to
take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize Ranking Member
Hunter, Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Ranking Member Saxton, and the
ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Terry Everett of
Alabama, for all their contributions, both to the Armed Services
Committee and to the Congress over the years.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
expired.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GINGREY. All of these Members have been a source of wisdom and
guidance to me, my colleagues on the committee and to the Nation, and
they will be sorely missed.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a
member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hunter
defense authorization bill, whose primary mission under the leadership
of Chairman Skelton is to restore military readiness to America's Armed
Forces. As has been stated earlier this evening, the bill focuses on
investing in short-term readiness, with increased commitment and
investment to reset the ground troops of this country as well as the
National Guard. But as Mr. Hunter indicated in his opening remarks, it
also looks over the horizon to deal with military readiness issues that
are not being addressed and have been neglected for far too long.
One of those is the size of the American Navy. When the Bush
administration took office in 2002, the size of America's Navy was 315
ships and submarines. It has declined to 276, and, shockingly, that
number is going to in fact accelerate, because we are basically living
off a legacy fleet that was built during the Reagan area.
Last year, I was proud to be part of an effort that turned around
this decline. We invested $588 million in advance procurement to the
Virginia class submarine program, the most successful shipbuilding
program according to both the Navy and outside experts, and this year
we continue that effort with Mr. Hunter's leadership on a motion at the
committee to add to the Seapower Subcommittee's $300 million advance
procurement. His motion, the Hunter-Courtney amendment, added $422
million, and we are now moving the Navy's shipbuilding schedule to two
submarines a year starting in 2010 with this legislation.
The industrial base is ready for this challenge. We know that from
again the testimony from both Virginia and Connecticut. My district is
the home of the Electric Boat, which is, again, one of the most
successful shipbuilders in the country in terms of the Virginia class
program. The last submarine, the USS New Hampshire, was delivered with
1 million fewer man-hours in terms of production compared to the prior
submarine that they built.
This investment which this legislation represents will allow this
country to again be ready for long-term challenges. The world is
changing, there are new maritime forces that are growing in different
parts of the world, and I strongly urge support and passage of the
Hunter defense authorization bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman who just spoke for
his kind remarks.
I want to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman who has come back from
the Rules Committee, traded up to come
[[Page 10305]]
back to the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman who has such a
large set of military facilities in his district and pays so much
attention to those facilities and to the national issue of security,
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. Let me say to the gentleman that coming back to the Armed
Services Committee from Rules is as close to a resurrection experience
that I expect to have on this side of the veil.
I am particularly pleased to rise in support of this legislation,
H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am
particularly pleased that it is named for my good friend and our
distinguished colleague, Mr. Hunter, who served our country in so many
ways, in uniform, in Congress, and certainly with great distinction and
great fairness on both sides with both sides of the aisle as former
chairman of our committee.
I particularly want to thank our current chairman, Mr. Skelton, who
presides so professionally with such personal integrity and so
thoughtfully over this important committee, and our staff, which does
great work on a bipartisan basis.
This committee really does work the way that I think most Americans
wish Congress worked, and I think it sets an outstanding example that I
wish others would follow.
There is very much in this bill, Mr. Chairman, that is excellent. I
am particularly pleased with the increase in family support, the focus
on additional barracks, the additional money in the research,
development, testing, evaluation and procurement accounts, the $70
billion set aside for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and a commitment to address the rest of the needs that our men and
women in the field have. When we have forces deployed, whether we agree
with the purpose or not, they should never, ever doubt our commitment
to seeing that they have everything they need, fully and in a timely
fashion, and this committee does its best to do that.
But there are some disappointments in this bill as well, Mr.
Chairman. I am particularly disappointed, like my friend Mr. Akin, in
the cut in the Future Combat System funding of $233 billion from the
request that the President sent forward. We are going to regret that on
some battlefield in some dangerous place at some point in the future. I
am particularly disappointed that we did not in a serious fashion deal
with Mr. Saxton's amendment that was offered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly disappointed that we did not deal in
a serious fashion in my opinion with Mr. Saxton's amendment, which
would have set a baseline of 4 percent of our GNP for future military
funding. That is something we know we need to do. We know in this
committee on a bipartisan basis that we spend too little. That is a
mistake we have made on both sides of the aisle. It is a bipartisan
mistake.
We cut far too much during the 1990s. History teaches us and our
chairman often appropriately lectures us that contingencies will come
that we do not understand and do not anticipate, and we know from the
bitter lessons of history that if we have not prepared through
sustained investment in our military, we can never make up lost ground
with hasty and ill-thought out appropriations in the short-term. I wish
we had done that. I hope we will do that in the amendment process.
But, Mr. Chairman, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, and
this bill is very, very good and is a product of genuine bipartisan
cooperation. So I am very proud to support it and very proud to urge
other Members of the Congress to vote for it.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this minute to highlight
one particular provision of this bill that is very important to me.
Like many Americans last year, I was outraged to learn that the
Pentagon was denying combat wounded veterans their enlistment bonuses,
apparently in the belief that they had not fulfilled their obligations
to the military because they had been wounded in service to this
country. Well, like most people in this House, I think that if you have
been injured in service to this country, you have done more than we
ever could have asked you to do. You have borne every burden and you
have fulfilled your obligation.
So I introduced the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act to ensure that
every combat wounded veteran gets the enlistment bonus that they
deserve. That legislation has been included in its entirety in this
legislation that we are passing today. I thank Chairman Skelton for
including it in the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it
to remedy this grave injustice.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
You know, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said tonight about
Duncan Hunter. I guess the only thing I can add is simply to repeat
that this man served his country in Vietnam as an Army Ranger. He
served 26 years in this House, part of the time in the majority, served
as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and has now served a total
of 28 years in this Congress. His entire life has been about service to
this country and the cause of human freedom, and I truly believe that
future generations will have a greater hope to live in freedom because
this man lived, and I salute him with all of my heart.
Mr. Chairman, I also support this bill. I only rise to associate some
of my feelings with those expressed by Terry Everett, the ranking
member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, when he was concerned that
the amendments that he offered to raise and restore some of the missile
defense cuts in the mark had not taken place.
He was especially concerned about the European site, the money that
was cut there, that it sends a message to Poland and other places like
that that are already in a very, very dangerous position politically
and in such a delicate situation that they may in fact lose the project
because of the message that we send to them.
{time} 2100
I believe it is very important that we realize that the missile
defense site in Poland is not just about missile defense, it is about
devaluing an entire nuclear missile program in the hands of an Iranian
nation.
Mr. Chairman, the very first purpose of this government is to defend
its citizens in peace, and I believe one of the greatest threats to
human peace in the world is a nuclear Iran.
In spite of what we have heard in the media, Iran continues to enrich
uranium which could give them an atomic bomb in less than 3 years. The
IAEA has reported that in the 9-month period between February and
November of 2007, the number of centrifuges enriching uranium operating
at its Natanz enrichment facility tripled from 1,000 to now
approximately 3,000 centrifuges.
The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, earlier this
year said to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he concurred with
the Israeli intelligence report stating that this many centrifuges
operating continuously would produce enough fissile material for a
nuclear weapon in less than 2 years. We now know that Iran is
increasing its number of operational centrifuges from 3,000 to 9,000.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, Iran is now beginning to manufacture its own
centrifuge, the IR2, which improves on the advanced P2 centrifuge that
was used in Pakistan to build its existing nuclear arsenal. It is
capable of producing enriched uranium two to three times faster than
the older models.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
[[Page 10306]]
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, some of the most dangerous and
lethal weapons our soldiers are facing in Iraq right now are there
because Iran gave it to them. Osama bin Laden said: It is our religious
duty to gain nuclear weapons.
If Iran is allowed to proliferate nuclear weapons into the hands of
terrorists, any sense or concept of peace that we have experienced in
this country so far could be gone in a blinding flash in the center of
one of our major cities, maybe even in Washington, DC. And yet this
majority has prevented us from voting on a military contingency plan to
prevent Iran from gaining this deadly capability.
Mr. Chairman, very simply, the highway of history is littered with
the dangers of strategic ambiguity, and I believe our best hope of
preventing a nuclear Iran is to help them understand that we are
prepared to do whatever is necessary, including a military contingency,
if they continue to pursue their nuclear capability.
I hope that our children are not faced with the consequences of that
strategic ambiguity. We need to be very, very clear. We need to vote on
the amendment to improve this bill tomorrow.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 2
minutes to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a
new member of the Armed Services Committee.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their
leadership on this legislation. As a new member of the House and of the
committee, it has been a pleasure participating in the bipartisan and
respectful process that both of you have created.
H.R. 5658 addresses our immediate readiness challenges while
maintaining our commitment to modernization that will keep our country
safe and deter threats in the future.
We are all in agreement that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are
having a severe impact on our readiness. This legislation puts us on
track to restore our readiness and our capability to respond to
emerging threats around the world. It also increases our capabilities
in Afghanistan by providing performance standards for Provincial
Reconstruction Teams, training and equipping the Afghan National
Security Forces, and increasing the Commanders Emergency Response Fund.
And this bill takes significant strides to improve the quality of life
for our men and women in uniform and their families. H.R. 5658 includes
a 3.9 percent pay increase. It rejects on a bipartisan basis the
proposed increases in TRICARE fees and copays.
Finally, I appreciate that the committee included a provision that I
have advocated for that would give flexibility to the Department of
Defense to increase the loan repayment amount for medical personnel in
the National Guard and Reserve.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have
stated, this is a good bill. It addresses the readiness needs of our
military, keeps us on track for modernization to meet future threats,
and takes care of our military personnel and their families. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my congratulations and
words of appreciation to our chairman and ranking member for the
terrific job they did on this year's defense authorization act.
The members of our Armed Forces, whether during times of war or
peace, deserve the wholehearted support and moral and financial
commitment and support from its citizens and its government. I believe
this support from this committee of our men and women in uniform is
undeniable. This bill does support the national defense mission, the
individual servicemember, and the military family. However, it is not
complete. We are continually increasing the demands of this voluntary
force, but our budget does not provide the needed resources for the
military with a growing responsibility and mission.
Some of these shortcomings includes cuts to future combat systems,
cuts to anti-missile defense systems, and the Marines are getting cuts
in the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. This vehicle would replace the
aging 38-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle that they currently rely
on in getting from their ships to the shore and exposes our Navy to
unnecessary risks, and I am concerned about these cuts.
But there are a lot of things to be in favor of in this bill. With
respect to SOCOM, these warfighters, as you know, operate throughout
the globe conducting missions that most of us will never hear about but
are absolutely essential and critical to defend against the
unconventional threats and preventing additional threats and crises
around the globe.
We support these warfighters, these magnificent warfighters by fully
funding their requirements. In addition, we added some $186 million to
provide for their unfunded requirements that they have on those lists
for surveillance capabilities and personnel protection gear. We also
authorized 26 human terrain teams that they have requested, and
supports our National Guard with some $800 million in additional money
for equipment.
With respect to our troops and their family welfare, we are in
complete agreement that the individual marine, sailor, soldier, and
airman is our most valuable national security asset. They stand between
this Nation and those who wish to do us harm and, along with their
families, sacrifice daily in defense of this Nation and our freedoms.
This bill reflects our commitment and responsibility to ensure that
they are taken care of. We are giving them a 3.9 percent pay raise,
some $650 million to improve barracks, and the elimination of all
temporary barracks between now and 2015.
We are going to add to their force, to their numbers so that they can
spread their responsibilities across a greater number of soldiers and
marines. We are re-equipping and resetting these forces with additional
funding provided for unfunded readiness initiatives, for training
shortfalls within the Army and Marine Corps. In addition we are
providing gear in the field to be used immediately with MRAPs,
additional body armor, and up-armored Humvees.
Mr. Chairman, while we may disagree with how these assets, tools,
and, most importantly, this personnel are used, there should be no
disagreement that we should provide this Nation with the personnel,
assets, and tools to protect this country with overwhelming force to
counter any and all threats. This bill moves us toward that goal, and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), who is also a member
of our Armed Services Committee.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I rise today in support of this bill, and I thank
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for bringing it to the floor
and for their great work. I want to also thank Chairman Ortiz and
Chairwoman Davis for their work during the subcommittee markup and the
committee staff for their hard work throughout the process.
Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill that will have a tremendous
impact on our servicemembers and their families, and I am proud to
support it. As a former military spouse, I know how much our troops and
their families depend on the strong support from Congress.
In this year's bill, we grow the military, adding 7,000 soldiers,
5,000 marines, 1,000 sailors, and 450 airmen to take the pressure off
the current military. We add a 3.9 percent pay increase and increase
existing bonuses. We provide nearly $25 billion for the defense health
program without increasing TRICARE fees. We increase benefits for
Guardsmen and Reservists as well. These actions are the way that we
show that we do support the troops and their families, and this is the
way we thank them for their service.
We designate money to keep F-22 fighters and C-17s rolling off the
production line. These two programs are
[[Page 10307]]
vital to our Air Force. We add a second Virginia class sub and the
resources in our shipyard system to maintain them. We include more than
$12 million for cold weather clothing systems that keep our men and
women warm in the mountains of Afghanistan. In this year's bill we
provide our Army aviation assets with advanced self-protection systems
that keep our soldiers safe in harm's way.
We also fund programs at home, like the Swimmer Detection Network
that protects our Los Angeles and Virginia class submarines at
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in my district. We fund military construction
projects at our shipyards and depots that are vital to our Nation's
defenses, and we add billions for housing at our bases that ensure our
servicemembers and their families are safe and comfortable.
I am proud that we worked together in a truly bipartisan manner to
produce this bill that cares for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines and their families. I urge the House to pass this bill.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009, and I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member
Hunter for their extraordinary leadership and their bipartisan manner
in which this bill was crafted, and also would like to recognize
Ranking Member Hunter's extraordinary legacy of leadership as he leaves
us as his duty on this committee expires.
I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the important
aspects of this bill. Nothing is more vital to our Nation's forward
presence and security than the aircraft carrier, and it remains
unacceptable to allow the total number of aircraft carriers to
diminish.
Maintaining the statutory requirement of 11 aircraft carriers is
essential to maintaining our superiority on the high seas, and we must
continue to develop the industrial base and promote shipbuilding to
establish a floor, not a ceiling, of 313 ships in our Navy. I urge
support for this important aspect of this bill.
I would also like to take a moment to discuss the importance of
directed energy and electromagnetic weapons systems, a top priority of
the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priority list. Increased
funding for this research, development, testing, and evaluation will
accelerate the installation and deployment of critical ship self-
defense improvements. The weapons systems we are developing through
this directed energy program will counter rockets, artillery, mortar,
and unmanned aerial vehicles for ship and expeditionary base defense,
and will ensure the safety of our fighting men and women. Such funding
promotes Navy objectives, and the development of directed energy
weapons will provide unique capability against emerging asymmetric
threats, thereby increasing our Nation's effectiveness on the global
war on terror.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the importance of basing our defense
budget on 4 percent of GDP, and I hope that we are able to address this
in the future as that is one important part of this bill that is
lacking.
I would also like to talk about the importance of submarines in our
national defense. Assessing the feasibility and cost of actions to
maximize the service life and number of Los Angeles class submarines
and assessing the attack submarine force structure requirement in the
2009 Quadrennial Defense Review and basing such an assessment on
combatant commander requirements are important aspects of this bill.
Submarines have been a central component of our naval forces for over a
century, and today the submarine helps our Navy conduct numerous
operations around the world. Our national defense demands that we have
a strong and capable naval fleet, and we must maximize the use of the
very capable Los Angeles class submarine and base our force structure
on what commanders in the field and on the seas need to accomplish
their diverse joint missions. We must keep our number of submarines
high, and this aspect of the bill would be a positive step in
strengthening our Nation's fighting forces.
I am honored to do my role in supporting the men, women, and
equipment of our Nation's military.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Our military should be able to meet its
operational requirements at all priority levels, and I request your
support on these important aspects of this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from
California (Mrs. Capps) for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for your assistance to help alleviate the
shortage of qualified and experienced nurse instructors in the United
States, including in the military. Right now, we are told that the
limiting factor in increasing the number of nurses to try to head off
the looming nurse shortage is the number of faculty available in our
nursing schools.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlelady for raising this very important
issue, and assure the gentlelady that I certainly share her concerns.
The Department of Defense is facing the same shortage of nurses as we
are across the Nation. However, the need for the Department is more
directly felt as we are at war, and our military nurses are caring for
our wounded and injured in addition to all their other duties.
{time} 2115
Let me say to the gentlelady that we have taken serious, substantive
steps to increase the number of nurses, both in the military and in the
civilian community. In this bill we have mandated the establishment of
a Department of Defense School of Nursing, following the successful
models of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences to
produce medical doctors, the Interservice Physician Assistant Program
to produce physician assistants for the military, and the Army's new
School of Social Work, which will enroll its first class this summer.
Although the graduates of the Department of Defense School of Nursing
will initially provide much needed care for our troops, I'm confident
that following their military service they will continue to serve our
Nation as nurses in civilian communities.
Finally, we've included a demonstration project to encourage retired
military nurses to become faculty members at civilian schools of
nursing to help alleviate the nurse instructor shortage of which you
speak.
Mrs. CAPPS. I want to thank the chairman for his excellent leadership
in improving health care for our servicemen and women, and especially
appreciate his inclusion of a demonstration project in the National
Defense Authorization Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California has
expired.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. CAPPS. Like you, I feel that military nurses are especially
equipped to take on the leadership role required of a nurse instructor.
We need to ensure that we meet our mutual goal of increasing the
capacity of colleges of nursing in order to graduate more nurses who
can fill current vacancies that are widespread, both in the military
and civilian sectors. I believe that this type of program can be a
model for other programs to alleviate shortage of nurse faculty, and
would ask the chairman to keep an open mind to other approaches to
alleviating the nursing shortage. And I appreciate the urgency created
during a time of war.
Mr. SKELTON. Let me assure the gentlelady that we look forward to the
results of the demonstration project, and I'm always open of course to
practical approaches to address the military nursing shortage.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the esteemed chairman for his efforts.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman
[[Page 10308]]
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Chairman Skelton, let me thank you for your friendship
and for your extraordinary leadership on the Committee on Armed
Services. I appreciate your willingness to engage me in the important
topic of suicide prevention in our military forces.
As you know, earlier this year, my constituent, Master Sergeant
(retired) Christopher Scheuerman, testified before the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel about the tragic circumstances surrounding the
suicide of his son, Private First Class Jason Drew Scheuerman. Jason
was deployed with the 3rd Infantry Division at Forward Operating Base
Normandy in Iraq, and died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound from his
M16 rifle. Jason showed clear signs of mental distress, but the system
failed Jason.
Recent reports indicate the Army suicide rate is the highest in 26
years of record keeping. While there are many outstanding mental health
professionals in the Army system, the command structure creates an
inherent conflict of interest and a lack of independent objectivity.
Servicemembers are currently allowed a second civilian opinion, but
often find it nearly impossible to access an outside mental health
provider. I appreciate the fact that this bill addresses the issue of
suicide prevention by directing the Secretary to consider how the
military can make a second opinion more accessible, including the
possibility of providing a second medical evaluation in combat theater
by telephonic evaluation. I know that that is a somewhat controversial
suggestion, but we must find a way to stop preventable suicides like
Jason Scheuerman. We owe our servicemen and women no less.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to work with you, Chairwoman
Davis and Ranking Member McHugh on this important issue, and I hope
that the Secretary will undertake this study immediately so that it is
possible for our troubled servicemembers to obtain a second civilian
health opinion.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this very important
issue. The Department of Defense has made many improvements to its
suicide prevention programs, but more can be done. I look forward to
working with the gentleman.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for his time and help.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have, I believe, no more speakers left,
so at this time let me just say that our ranking members and our
chairmen have covered the waterfront of what this bill does. They've
taken it from personnel, the pay raise that the chairman started off
talking about, the 3.9 percent pay raise, the end strength increases in
the Army and Marine Corps, the quality of life increases that we've
delivered to our people in uniform, to the equipment side, to the force
protection that we are sending additional to Afghanistan and to Iraq,
MRAPs, extra armor capability, extra technical capability to be able to
defend our forces and help them accomplish the mission, to the
modernization side, the platforms that we are building with the
modernization part of this budget, to the readiness part of this
budget, which is so critical to ongoing operations, and to some of the
technical aspects of the budget that I think the Strategic Subcommittee
spoke to so effectively, including the programs that involve space,
involve missile defense. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think we've described
the bill fairly effectively.
And I think also we've described the people. At least I want to make
sure we understand how wonderful the people are who put this bill
together, not only the ranking members and the chairmen of the
subcommittee and our great chairman of the full committee, Ike Skelton,
the man from Missouri, but also the wonderful staff that we have that's
worked long hours to put together what is a very large bill, in many
cases, very technical, and yet they did it with great precision, and we
owe them a debt of gratitude.
Let me just say in my closing seconds here, Mr. Chairman, that I
talked about the horizon that I think we face in terms of military
challenges. I think that part of that horizon must require a focus on
China. The fact that China is now outbuilding the U.S. in submarines by
more than 3-1, with their acquisitions from the Russians, it's much
more. They're acquiring great technical capability, and they are
building an industrial base that, in many areas, such as building
warships, could outstrip the United States very quickly in production.
And just as our great chairman mentioned, that it takes more than
just a military to win wars and to carry out foreign policy, it's going
to take some changes in policy to maintain the United States as a
premier military force in the world. Some of those changes are going to
require changes in our tax law, in our tariff law that will allow our
industrial base to stay in the United States, that will stop these
companies that are key to national security who are being advised right
now by their financial advisors to move their production offshore,
changes in our law that will cause them to stay in the United States,
because the environment, the business environment in the United States
and the tax environment will be such that they will not be induced to
move offshore.
Also, with respect to the hemorrhage of technical information which
is going on with the acquisition of American companies on a very
selected basis by companies and by nations that are targeting American
military technology. This committee has moved toward stopping that
hemorrhage by adopting several important provisions with respect to
security, site security at companies that do classified information.
But there's much more work to be done there, and I know that the
committee is moving in that direction and undertaking a great strides
in that direction. But that's a direction that's going to require the
participation of the entire body, Mr. Chairman, in fact, the entire
government. So we have a big challenge ahead of us.
Again, I want to thank the chairman for putting together a bill that
passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee, and should pass
unanimously off the House floor. So once again, a job well done to the
gentleman from Missouri.
I would yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is advised that he
has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman from California. And I must add
that this is properly named for Duncan Hunter in honor of the hard work
that you've done through the years. Thank you.
When you put a bill together like this that's $531 billion of
taxpayer money for national security, there are unseen hands that have
helped glue this together bit by bit and part by part. And that's the
unsung but very valuable and absolutely terrific staff of the Armed
Services Committee under the direction of Erin Conaton, and I
particularly wish to complement her on her hard work. Everyone on this
staff is outstanding and an expert in his or her field, and I want them
to know that they are appreciated, and that we're very grateful for
their work.
This will close out the general debate on this bill. It's an
excellent bill, and I think that in truth and fact it has made a great
stride toward increasing the readiness of our troops. People in the
country should take a great deal of comfort in knowing that there's
such bipartisanship on this committee. So I thank the gentleman from
California.
I am very, very proud of the members of this committee, the Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5658,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This
legislation authorizes $601.4 billion for defense programs in FY 2009,
including $70 billion in emergency funds authorized specifically to
support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is funding that is
critical to our nation's defense, as well as to the troops serving so
valiantly in the wars being waged on two fronts.
Thanks in a large part to the leadership of Chairman Skelton, this
legislation provides
[[Page 10309]]
greater funding than had been requested by the President for equipment
depleted by the war in Iraq, including new combat vehicles, new battle
gear for the Army National Guard and reserves, military pay raises, and
shipbuilding.
H.R. 5658 authorizes $25.4 billion for defense health-care programs,
and blocks the president's plan to raise user fees for programs such as
Tricare and deductibles for service members and military retirees. This
legislation will also authorize an increase of 7,000 active-duty Army
personnel, and provide for 5,000 more Marine Corps personnel than
current levels.
This legislation also provides for a 3.5 percent pay raise for active
duty military, rolls back proposed benefit reductions to spousal
benefits, and increases funding for military housing upgraded for bases
like Fort Bragg, North Carolina, located in my district.
Mr. Chairman this is a good bill for our troops. It is our duty, our
charge as members of this body, to ensure that those who protect and
defend our nation in this all-volunteer army receive the best health
care, pay, and living conditions that we can provide for them. We owe
this to them.
I support this legislation and I would urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on
the House Armed Services Committee, specifically my good friend,
Representative Duncan Hunter of California, for including a provision
in the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill that finally
provides for consideration of our Nation's defense industrial base when
contracting officials evaluate major Federal defense contract
proposals.
Few people are aware that the Pentagon is prevented by law from
including defense industrial base considerations when deciding to award
a major defense contract. A contract award determination is made
primarily by examining which party has the ``best value'' in terms of
price, quality, quantity, and delivery. However, how many jobs a
particular contract would produce or retain in America or how many
suppliers would be able to stay in business in America because of a
particular contract is currently not part of the ``best value''
evaluation by the Pentagon. Most believe that the Buy American Act
protects the interests of American workers. However, because of a
series of Memorandums of Understanding, MOUs, signed years ago between
the Pentagon and other foreign defense agencies, a product can be made
completely in Europe and be considered as if made in America and thus
compliant with the Buy American Act. In return, U.S. defense articles
are supposed to be considered by European procurement officials on the
same grounds as European products. However, Europe protected its
economic interests in these agreements by including European defense
industrial base protections as one criterion in their source selection
process. This didn't used to be a problem in the past. However, with
the consolidation of major prime defense contractors in the United
States and the relatively recent creation of the European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Company, EADS, there has been more and more conflict
in major U.S. defense procurements.
Section 805 of H.R. 5658 seeks to copy Europe's example. It simply
allows the Pentagon to consider impacts on the U.S. industrial base
during source selection for major defense acquisition programs. This
section also authorizes defense acquisition officials to impose
penalties on a contractor who misleads the Government regarding
potential domestic industrial base impacts.
The bill also asks the Secretary of Defense to notify congressional
defense committees at least 30 days before requesting a proposal for
any major defense acquisition program that will not use a domestic
industrial base evaluation factor during the source selection process.
It also includes second and third level suppliers as part of the
defense industrial base because the health of this sector of the
economy cannot be measured solely by looking at the stock price of the
large prime defense contractors.
As someone who voted for every free trade agreement since being
elected to Congress in 1992, this section is not protectionism. Back in
1776, Adam Smith argued in his celebrated ``Wealth of Nations''; that
``(i)t is of importance that the kingdom should depend as little as
possible upon its neighbors for the manufactures necessary for its
defense.'' He supported a bounty--or a tax--on the export of British
sailcloth and gunpowder to prevent other nations and potential enemies
from benefiting from Great Britain's advantage in these products. If
the founder of modern-day capitalism and free trade supported an
exception to the free flow of trade in defense goods, then domestic
sourcing preferences to protect our national security and defense
industrial base must be considered consistent with the very foundation
of free trade and capitalism.
Congress has a duty to be concerned with our nation's ability to
build the weapons and equipment necessary to defend itself. Any
argument founded merely on shopping for the best value without
considering the larger defense industrial base will leave our great
nation exposed and vulnerable. A nation that cannot produce the
materials necessary for its defense will eventually become a second-
rate power.
Now, some analysts have argued that we should not press for more
domestic sourcing of defense articles because Europe and other nations
buy more U.S. defense technology that we buy from them. These
statistics, however, fail to account for the offsets in defense sales
required by other governments, including our friends in Europe.
According to a 2007 report entitled Offsets in Defense Trade prepared
by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce,
over 98 percent of all U.S. defense sales to Europe were ``offset''
from 1993 to 2006. In other words, for every dollar a European
government spent on U.S. defense equipment, the U.S. prime defense
contractors had to provide 98 cents in industrial compensation
arrangements to that government. These compensation arrangements range
from requiring re-locating a share of the production of that defense
item to that country to marketing that country's goods in the United
States. However, the United States is prohibited by law to require of a
foreign defense contractor to ``offset'' part of the cost of the
proposed acquisition. thus, our two-way defense trade with Europe is
already heavily weighted in their favor.
Finally, Section 805 of H.R. 5658 will not launch a trade war because
there have been several occasions in the past when European governments
refused to buy from American companies because of their own defense
industrial base concerns. In 2003, Pratt & Whitney lost a bid to
EuroProp International (EPI) to supply the engine for the A400M
European military troop transport plane despite the fact that their
initial bid was 20 percent lower, they had a higher quality engine, and
they committed to build a new assembly line in Europe and include 75
percent European content in the engine. According to the Financial
Times on June 13, 2003, Airbus effectively declared Pratt & Whitney the
winner until European governments intervened and promised financial
support to EPI so it could drop its price and clinch the deal with a
redesigned engine in order to keep all the work in Europe.
Similarly, in 2003, when Italy wanted to build a new fleet of search
and rescue helicopters, Skirosky and MD Helicopters were interested in
bidding on the contract but were not even given the opportunity. The
Italian government decided instead to award the contract without any
competition to their national helicopter company--Augusta/Westland--on
the grounds of ``homeland security.''
Mr. Chairman, encouraging the Pentagon to consider the defense
industrial base as one factor in their contract decision-making process
will help us safeguard over the long-term the knowledge and innovation
that make our defense industry the best in the world. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 5658 and, in particular, Section 805,
throughout the legislative process.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of H.R. 5658, the
Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of FY 2009.
Just a few months ago, we reflected on the 5-year anniversary of this
war. Today we send a message to our troops that we are with them.
This bill authorizes additional funds for the needs of our troops
overseas, and more importantly will authorize a pay raise larger than
that requested by the President.
During these hard economic times of recession, foreclosures, and high
gas prices, our military families need all our help and support. This
bill prohibits fee increases in TRICARE and expands available health
care services.
This bill is a step in the right direction, with directives for the
Afghanistan conflict, and more accountability of the Iraqi government
and contractors.
Today we make our commitment to the Americans we represent, and their
sons, daughters, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers serving as part
of the Armed Forces. They are fighting a war that is not their fight.
In my district alone, 13 families will sit at their dinner table
without a loved one. To these families in my district and those
throughout the Nation, I thank you for your service, your sacrifice and
your love for this Nation. You are the back bone of the Armed Forces.
I urge my colleagues to keep our commitment to our troops, redirect
this war in the right direction and vote for H.R. 5658.
[[Page 10310]]
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Skelton and Ranking Republican
Hunter, I rise in support of my Amendment to H.R. 5658, the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 which has been
included as part of an en bloc amendment. My Amendment requires the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to identify the mental health
risks associated with the performance of individual military duties.
This assessment will recognize cases of suicide by military occupation,
and identify military occupations with a high incidence of suicide.
More importantly the study shall suggest additional suicide prevention
programs specific to military occupations with higher risk.
To my knowledge, the issue of differing suicide risks amongst
military occupations has not been studied in any great depth. Colonel
Michael Bartley of Nellis Air Force Base and Colonel Chris Chambliss of
Creech Air Force Base have highlighted for me the unique mental health
challenges that members of our military face who are on the front lines
of the Global War on Terror, but located here in the States. The State
of Nevada is home to Creech Air Force Base which serves as the premier
host for MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs).
The operator of a UAV fleet is truly at the forefront of the Global
War on Terror. I am greatly concerned that some military occupations,
such as UAV operators, may suffer from chronic mental health disorders
such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to stress and
fatigue. I feel these soldiers may not receive the same level of
emotional support from their peers that they would receive if they were
located overseas. Rather, they return to their families and civilian
society without the appropriate outlet for dealing with the emotional
tolls of their duties.
It is my hope that the Secretary of Defense will continue to address
the pressing matter of the mental health strains inflicted upon our
active duty service men and women. This study will help us begin to
understand how the new technologies that allow us to wage wars more
effectively, bring about unforeseen complications for the service men
and women who volunteer to serve our Nation. I encourage my colleagues
to support this common sense amendment that will provide the mental
health services needed by the 21st Century war fighter.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about an
important topic relevant to this legislation.
It's distressing that a rising number of our brave service men and
women are coming back from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq
suffering from the ``signature injuries of these conflicts''--Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.
I believe that PTSD is a critically important issue and as a Congress
we need to continue to do all we can to get our military leaders,
commanders, and medical professionals to focus on this problem for our
newest generation of veterans.
In the past few years and even weeks, a number of studies have
pointed out the gaps in our military health care system into which may
be falling a growing number of our servicemembers who may be suffering
from PTSD.
I am sure that my colleagues are very aware of the recent RAND report
that up to 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may be suffering from
PTSD and/or depression.
This issue was brought to my attention most vividly by a constituent
who served 10 months in Iraq. After he came home, he began to self-
medicate--as a number of soldiers who may be suffering from this deadly
disease do-- using alcohol and engaging in misconduct that ultimately
got him discharged from the service.
Unfortunately, this discharge not only prevented him from continuing
to receive needed mental health care from the DOD but also from going
to the VA to get treated for PTSD.
My constituent ultimately took his life and left many, including his
family, to wonder if he had been able to get needed help after his
return from Iraq, or if he could have accessed the number of mental
health services that are available from the VA, whether the outcome
could have been different.
What is clear from the DoD's mental health task force and other
reports is that the outcome can be different for the thousands of our
soldiers who may be suffering.
I am pleased by the hard work and focus on this issue that the Armed
Services Committee has taken in the past few years. I commend the
Chairman, the Ranking Member, and others who have worked and continue
to do so to ensure that the ``signature injuries'' of our ongoing
conflicts receive the highest level of attention from this Congress.
I also want to commend the Services on the changes and improvements
they've made thus far.
However, let's be clear: more can be done. I offered three amendments
to this bill to highlight the need to continue to try and make those
improvements.
The amendment made in order today would ensure that recommendations
that have been put forward to close identified gaps are actually
implemented and that our servicemembers see actual improvements in
terms of their ability to receive help when they need it.
That is the purpose of the amendment which the Chairman has
graciously included in this En Bloc package that would require the GAO
to assess the DoD's progress in implementing the June 2007
recommendations of the Congressionally created DoD Mental Health Task
Force.
It is my expectation that the GAO will examine and assess the
implementation of all the recommendations with a focus on those related
to:
Developing a comprehensive public education campaign to reduce the
stigma associated with mental health problems;
Changing Department of Defense policies to ``Guarantee a Thorough
Assessment of Behavioral Symptoms When Evaluating Combat Veterans for
Administrative/Legal Dismissal from the Military'' including
``carefully assessing a soldier's history of exposure to conditions
that could cause PTSD, or traumatic brain injury, or related diagnoses
for those facing administrative or medical discharge'';
Appointment of a psychological director of health in each military
department, military treatment facility, the National Guard, and the
Reserves;
Enhancing TRICARE benefits and care for mental health problems;
Implementing an annual psychological health assessment addressing
cognition, psychological functioning, and overall psychological
readiness for each member of the Armed Forces, including members of the
National Guard and reserve components;
Developing a model for allocating resources to military mental health
facilities, and services embedded in line units, based on an assessment
of the needs of and risks faced by the populations served by such
facilities and services;
Maintaining adequate family support programs for families of deployed
members of the Armed Forces.
It is my desire that GAO report on the dates on which recommendations
are expected to be fully implemented and progress on implementing the
recommendations throughout the year covered by the report, including
barriers.
We must never lose sight of the fact that the goal is not just for
DoD to have a plan, although that is helpful, but to actually make
these changes and do it in a timely way.
I thank the Chairman for his support of this simple amendment and
look forward to working with him in the future to ascertain what
additional steps, if any, that are needed and which can be taken to
help our servicemembers who may be suffering from PTSD.
Again, I thank you for your efforts.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Murphy of Connecticut) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ellison, Acting
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellison). The unfinished business is the
question on suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H.
Res. 1137.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1137.
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.
[[Page 10311]]
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 309.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 309.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 2130
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 339, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 339, 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF BICYCLING IN TRANSPORTATION AND
RECREATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 305.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 305.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
LET OUR VETERANS REST IN PEACE ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 3480, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3480, 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 direct the United
States Sentencing Commission to assure appropriate punishment
enhancements for those involved in receiving stolen property where that
property consists of grave markers of veterans, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PROVISION GRANTING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT
STATUS FOR CERTAIN IRAQIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 2829.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 2829.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EXTENDING PROGRAM RELATING TO WAIVER OF FOREIGN COUNTRY RESIDENCE
REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GRADUATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 5571, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5571, 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 extend for 5 years
the program relating to waiver of the foreign country residence
requirement with respect to international medical graduates, and for
other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1106.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1106.
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.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658,
DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-666) on the resolution (H. Res. 1218) providing
for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL BRAIN TUMOR
AWARENESS MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1124, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1124, 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 10312]]
____________________
REDUCING MATERNAL MORTALITY BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1022, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1022, 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL
NATIONAL MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 134, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 134, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL OSTEOPOROSIS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 369, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 369, 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
VETERANS PAIN CARE ACT
(Mr. WALZ of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise because I am
introducing the Veterans Pain Care Act of 2008. This bill will require
the Secretary of the VA to develop and implement a comprehensive policy
on pain management for veterans enrolled in the VA health care system
and to carry out a program of research, training and education on acute
and chronic pain.
Modern warfare leads to serious, but survivable, injuries. While
advances in medical technology have saved lives, many of our wounded
soldiers have been afflicted by acute and chronic pain. Pain is a
leading cause of disability among veterans. As a result, providing
adequate pain management is a crucial component to improving veterans'
welfare.
The Department of Veteran Affairs has pain care programs, but a
comprehensive plan isn't consistently enforced across the system. My
legislation will give the VA the necessary tools to serve the needs of
our veterans.
This bill has the support of a wide range of organizations. I would
like to enter into the Record a letter of support from 50 organizations
in the Pain Care Coalition.
The Senate companion to this bill has the support of both the
chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee. I am hopeful that this will garner bipartisan support for
this legislation in the House and be passed to support our veterans.
Pain Care Coalition,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2008.
Re Veterans Pain Care Act of 2008
Hon. Tim Walz,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Walz: The Pain Care Coalition applauds
your leadership in championing the Veterans Pain Care Act. We
enthusiastically support the measure, and pledge the
assistance of our organizations as you move the bill forward
in the House. As your bill mirrors bi-partisan legislation
under consideration in the Senate, and complements a DoD pain
care initiative included in the House FY 2009 Defense
Authorization bill, we are optimistic that it will receive
wide support.
Pain is a huge public health problem for veterans.
Virtually every service member injured in current and past
conflicts experienced acute pain at the time of injury. Many
others suffered acute pain in connection with non-combat
related injury or disease. For too many, the acute pain
progresses to a chronic pain condition that threatens the
veteran's basic quality of life. These same chronic pain
conditions can be cost ``drivers'' in VA health and
disability systems. With prompt and aggressive treatment,
much acute pain can be alleviated, and much chronic pain
avoided or managed.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is doing much to provide
good pain care and advance important pain research, but much,
much more remains to be done. Your bill will make pain care a
national priority within the VA health care programs.
Millions of veterans who have served our country deserve no
less.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Rosenquist,
Chair.
____
Consensus Statement Supporting the Congressional Military Pain Bill and
the Veterans Pain Bill
Acute and chronic pain afflicts both military personnel and
veterans in proportions far exceeding the general population.
Pain is the leading cause of disability among veterans.
Characteristics of modern warfare produce serious, but
survivable, injuries to the central and peripheral nervous
systems that inflict terrible acute pain and lead to chronic
pain in many cases. Providing adequate pain management is a
crucial component to improving military and veteran health
care. A growing number of wounded veterans are experiencing
long-term problems with chronic pain; left untreated, pain
can have life-long consequences.
As members of organizations dedicated to improving the
lives of veterans and military personnel and organizations
dedicated to improving the quality of pain management, the
undersigned organizations support and urge passage of
legislation to improve pain care for active duty military and
veterans. In particular we support legislation which:
Requires Uniformed Service Secretaries to implement a
comprehensive pain care initiative to require prompt
assessment and reassessment of pain in all health setting;
emphasizes assessment, diagnosis, treatment & management of
pain as an integral part of military health care; and deploys
acute pain services to all combat support hospitals and,
where feasible, on the battlefield.
Requires Tricare plans to provide pain care services that
ensure appropriate assessment, diagnosis, treatment and
management of acute and chronic pain and provide
comprehensive interdisciplinary services for hard to treat
chronic pain patients.
Requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement in
VA health facilities and programs a pain care initiative
comparable to that required for DOD programs.
Requires the VA to increase its research effort in the
areas of acute and chronic pain, including identifying
priority research areas most relevant to veterans.
Requires the VA to emphasize education and training of VA
personnel in pain management.
Establishes cooperative research center for acute and
chronic pain, including one with a special focus on central
and peripheral nervous system damage.
Directs the GAO to evaluate the consistency of military and
veteran pain care services across different programs,
facilities, demographic groups and geographic areas; and
Assesses the adequacy and appropriateness of pain care
services based on performance measures previously adopted by
the VA.
Signed:
Air Compassion for Veterans.
Alliance of State Pain Initiatives.
Alpharma Pharmaceuticals LLC.
American Academy of Pain Medicine.
American Association of Diabetes Educators.
American Cancer Society.
American RSDHope.
Ava Mina Pain Clinic.
The American Chronic Pain Association.
American Headache Society.
American Pain Foundation.
American Pain Society.
[[Page 10313]]
American Pharmacists Association.
American Society of Anesthesiologists.
American Society for Pain Management Nursing.
Amputee Coalition of America.
AVANCEN LLC.
Boston Scientific.
Brave New Foundation.
Cause.
Cephalon, Inc.
Comfort Care Unlimited.
Coming Home Project.
Endo Pharmaceuticals.
Florida Pain Initiative.
HealthSouth Valley of the Sun Rehabilitation Hospital.
Homes for Our Troops.
Jacob's Light Foundation, Inc.
Indiana Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
Indiana Pain Initiative.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Medtronic, Inc.
Michigan Cancer Pain Initiative.
Missouri Pain Initiative.
Montana Cancer Control Coalition.
National Fibromyalgia Research Association.
National Pain Foundation.
National Veterans Legal Services Program.
National Vulvodynia Association.
One Freedom, Inc.
Operation Helmet.
Operation Home Front.
Pain Care Coalition.
Pain Connection.
Pain Treatment Topics.
P.A.N.D.O.R.A.
Project Return to Work, Inc.
Purdue Pharma L.P.
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association.
South Dakota Injured Workers Coalition.
St. Jude Medical's Neuromodulation Division Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.
Swords to Plowshares.
The Pathway Home (Veterans Home of California).
There is Hope . . . for Chronic Pain.
Veterans for America.
Washington--Alaska Pain Initiative.
____________________
MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SPENT TO FIND CURES AND TREATMENT FOR DISEASES,
NOT FOR MORE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, in the next day or two, this House will
consider funding the war in Iraq and also we will be thinking and have
been thinking about our colleague in the Senate and the father of one
of our Members, Senator Ted Kennedy. We will think about Hamilton
Jordan, who passed away also.
Senator Kennedy suffers from a brain tumor. Hamilton Jordan suffered
from cancer. When you think about how many dollars we have spent on
that war effort and what those dollars could do to cure diseases of
people here on Earth, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, we need to put more
money into curing disease, finding treatments and cures, rather than
funding weapons of mass destruction.
The Bible says something about beating your swords into plowshares. I
would submit that if we have the ability to seek finite spots on the
Earth from the air to find targets for our weapons, we should turn
those scientists' efforts toward finding ways to look inside our bodies
and find cures for diseases.
Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a letter to the Speaker and to the
chairman of the Finance Committee to do just that.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC May 15, 2008.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Chairman David Obey,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey: I am writing to
request that NIH funding in the President's FY09 budget for
the research of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS,
Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease be doubled in the
final FY09 budget set forth by Congress.
The following are the estimates included in the President's
FY09 Budget request for research at the National Institutes
of Health (NIH):
Cancer: $5.654B.
Diabetes: $1.033B.
Heart Disease: $2.111B.
Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis
under National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases:
$300M.
Alzheimer's Disease: $644M.
Parkinson's Disease: $186M.
These debilitating diseases affect millions of people each
year across the globe. Families are torn apart, emotionally
and financially, by the effects of their contraction.
Congress has a serious responsibility to provide adequate
funding for research that could not only find promising
treatments, but permanent cures.
I cannot imagine a more pressing issue than ensuring the
healthy future of those we are here to represent. The
disparity between the amounts of funding requested for the
war in Iraq and that requested to treat deadly diseases is
incomprehensible. The successful findings of research
programs made possible through increased funding will not
only aid people in the United States, but the rest of the
world, as well. It is my hope that, by taking full advantage
of the scientific resources we have here at home, we can
better our relationships with research teams across the globe
to reach our common goals: finding a cure and establishing
peace.
As always, I remain,
Most Sincerely,
Steve Cohen,
Member of Congress.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
AN AMERICAN GI
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, standing on the beaches of Normandy, he found
himself silent. Like a scene ripped from the movie Saving Private Ryan,
this American GI was overwhelmed with memories. Memories so vivid, so
real that in an instant he was a soldier again in the 7th Army,
surviving the Battle of the Bulge, fighting through the Cities of
Aachen, Stuttgart, Cologne, and Bonn. The graves before him transcended
time, taking him back in history to a time when freedom was on the
line.
He was born in the 1920s. He grew up in the Depression of the
thirties, and he grew up poor like most rural American children. Fresh
vegetables were grown in the family garden behind the small frame
house. His mother made sandwiches for school out of homemade bread.
Store-bought bread was for the rich. He grew up belonging to the Boy
Scouts, playing the trumpet in the high school band and going to church
almost every Sunday.
In 1944, this 18-year-old country boy that had never been more than
50 miles from home finally found himself going through basic training
in the United States Army at Camp Walters in Texas. After that, he rode
the train with hundreds of other young teenagers to New York City for
the hazardous ocean trip on a cramped liberty ship to fight in the
great World War II.
No amount of training could have prepared him for what he was about
to experience. As a teenager, he and thousands like him put life on the
line for freedom. He saw the concentration camps at Dachau and the
victims of the Nazis. This horror gave him a clear understanding of why
America was at war. He saw incredible numbers of other teenage
Americans buried in graves throughout France, but like so many of his
generation, he really never discussed the details, only saying that the
real heroes were the ones that never came home from Europe.
Some 64 years after the war, my hero stood before the monument at
Normandy with the thousands of white crosses and Stars of David and
paid tribute to his heroes. The price of freedom was enormous, the
memories of the sacrifices made were overwhelming. Amidst the whirlwind
of imagery flashing before his eyes, my dad began to recall life before
the war and what victory in Europe meant for Americans--and what
freedom means today.
After Germany surrendered, he went back to Fort Hood, Texas,
expecting to be re-equipped for the land invasion of Japan. It was
there he met Mom at a Wednesday night prayer meeting church service,
but before he could be shipped out to Japan, the Japanese surrendered
and the war was over. Not too long after that, he opened a DX service
[[Page 10314]]
station where he pumped gas, sold tires, fixed cars, and began a
family.
Deciding that he needed to go to college, he moved to West Texas and
enrolled in a small Christian college called Abilene Christian College.
He and his wife and two small children lived in an old converted Army
barracks with other such families. He supported us by working nights at
KRBC radio and climbing telephone poles for ``Ma Bell.''
He finished college, became an engineer, and worked 40-plus years for
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in Houston, Texas. He turned down a
promotion and a transfer to New York City because it wasn't Texas, and
as he said it was ``no place to raise a family.'' Mom and Dad still
live in Houston not far from where I grew up.
After his recent trip to Normandy, he opened up a little more about
the war, still humble about his contributions, but looking back on the
significance of victory through the eyes of an 82-year-old man. Don't
get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't mellowed at all in these years. He
still rants and raves about the east coast media, and he has a strong
opinion on politics and today's fight for freedom in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He gives plenty of advice to everybody, including me.
He has two computers in his home office and e-mails with his buddies
all around the world. He still flies the flag on holidays. He mows his
own grass, and he can fix anything. He goes to church on Sunday, and he
takes Mom out to eat almost every Friday night.
On Memorial Day, we honor those who fought and died in America's
wars. We don't have to look far for courage or stories of inspiration.
They are all around us from the men and women who proudly wear the
uniform of a U.S. warrior.
Across the Potomac River in Arlington National Cemetery are the
graves of the silent warriors who, in their youth, gave their lives for
our future. Down the street from the Capitol are the World War I, the
World War II, the Korean, and Vietnam Memorials. Standing in front of
the World War II Memorial are the pillars from each of our States and
Territories. On the back wall, there appears to be a large bronze
plate. Mr. Speaker, it is not a bronze plate at all but it's 4,000
bronze stars. Each star represents 100 Americans, mostly teenagers,
killed in the great World War II. Four hundred thousand Americans, many
still buried in the fields of Europe where they gave their lives for
the rest of us.
Without the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, America would not
be the amazing country of liberty it is today. My hero, my dad, is one
of the charter members of the Greatest Generation.
This Memorial Day, he and his fellow veterans at the local American
Legion hall will be marching in a parade somewhere in Texas. He's the
best man I ever met. Virgil Poe: good man, good father, good soldier.
That's plenty for one life.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
REAFFIRMING SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE FOR LEBANON UNDER PRIME MINISTER FOUAD
SINIORA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as the representative of
thousands of proud Lebanese Americans in Connecticut's Fifth
Congressional District, I rise tonight in strong support of the
democratically elected government of Lebanon and to condemn the recent
violence perpetrated against the people of Lebanon by the terrorist
group Hezbollah.
Lebanon is a vital ally in a region where we need all the allies that
we can get. It is a vibrant society composed and defined by its
diversity of religious and ethnic backgrounds. A culturally rich Nation
renowned for its tolerance and democratic values, Lebanon stands at the
crossroads of Arab tradition and Western culture.
Yes, Lebanon has struggled with the proxy wars fought inside its
borders by powerful neighboring nations, but with the strong support of
the United States, the strong independence and vibrant democratic
tradition of Lebanon can and will continue.
Yesterday, this House considered H.R. 1149, which reaffirmed the
support of this House for the democratically elected government of
Lebanon, led by the governing March 14 coalition. This resolution was
necessary because that government has recently come under vicious
attack by Hezbollah-led opposition fighters, an outbreak of violence
that has brought that country to the brink of civil war.
In response to legitimate actions by the government to protect the
security of its own citizens, Hezbollah instigated riots, blocked
roads, forcibly shut down media stations, and attacked the residences
of prominent members of the ruling coalition. During the course of this
violence, Mr. Speaker, more than 69 Lebanese citizens were killed and
more than 250 were wounded.
These actions blatantly violated the commitments made by Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah, who has always maintained that Hezbollah
exists solely to defend Lebanon against Israel, and that its members
would never take arms up against other Lebanese. That pretense is now
clearly shown to the entire world to be false, as we have known it was
for a very long time. Indeed, Hezbollah's primary purpose seems to be
to act as the agent of Iran and Syria, which continue arming the
terrorist group in order to maintain a presence in Lebanon and a
military front on Israel's northern border.
This brief, but bloody, period of fighting was the worst violence
Lebanon has seen since the civil war that engulfed that Nation from
1975 to 1990. It demonstrated the military strength of Hezbollah's
militias, and it threatened the free media, religious tolerance, and
cultural diversity that make Lebanon such an important ally of the
United States. The streets of Beirut are now relatively calm, but
Lebanon will remain under threat until that government becomes truly
independent from foreign influence.
It has been more than 3 years since the Cedar Revolution, when the
people of Lebanon took to the streets and demanded an end to Syria's
occupation of that country. Unfortunately, while Syrian troops have
withdrawn, its government has continued to undermine Lebanon's vibrant
but fragile democracy. They do this by allowing weapons shipments to
pass over their territory into Lebanon and by continuing to disrupt
internal Lebanese politics.
The boiling over of tensions that have been building for months has
brought the world's attention to the challenges facing Lebanon, and we
must capitalize on that focus.
Last night, the government and opposition leaders concluded talks in
Doha, Qatar, finally reaching an agreement that will allow for the
formation of a government and the election of Michel Suleiman as
President, probably as soon as this Sunday. This is a welcome
development and one that bodes well for the future of Lebanon.
But a number of issues still remain unaddressed. These include the
status of Hezbollah's weapons, the future of Lebanon's electoral law,
and the long overdue investigation into the murder of former Prime
Minister Hariri.
The Lebanese people have found a way to live side by side with all of
their differences for years and years, and I for one believe that it is
in the United States' best interest to do all that we can to use
yesterday's political breakthrough to press for the total elimination
of undue outside influence on the Lebanese government and Lebanese
society.
As political negotiations move forward in Lebanon, the United States,
its Arab allies, and the European Union must provide the Lebanese
government with the economic, military and political support it needs.
We have seen the difficulty of promoting new democracies in the Middle
East; however, in Lebanon, we have the opportunity to preserve one. A
window of opportunity has opened, Mr. Speaker. The United States must
now work diligently and quickly with Lebanon and her allies to assure
that the moment is seized.
[[Page 10315]]
____________________
SUNSET MEMORIAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I stand once again before this
House with yet another Sunset Memorial.
It is May 21, 2008, in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, and before the sun set today in America, almost 4,000 more
defenseless unborn children were killed by abortion on demand. That's
just today, Mr. Speaker. That's more than the number of innocent lives
lost on September 11 in this country, only it happens every day.
It has now been exactly 12,903 days since the tragedy called Roe v.
Wade was first handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this
Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of its own
children. Some of them, Mr. Speaker, died and screamed as they did so,
but because it was amniotic fluid passing over the vocal cords instead
of air, no one could hear them.
And all of them had at least four things in common. First, they were
each just little babies who had done nothing wrong to anyone, and each
one of them died a nameless and lonely death. And each one of their
mothers, whether she realizes it or not, will never be quite the same.
And all the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity
are now lost forever. Yet even in the glare of such tragedy, this
generation still clings to a blind, invincible ignorance while history
repeats itself and our own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the
most helpless of all victims, those yet unborn.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it's time for those of us in this Chamber to
remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said,
``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is
the chief and only object of good government.'' The phrase in the 14th
amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution, it says, ``No State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law.'' Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and
their constitutional rights is why we are all here.
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the clarion declaration of
the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Every conflict and battle our Nation has
ever faced can be traced to our commitment to this core, self-evident
truth.
It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world. Mr. Speaker,
it is who we are.
And yet today another day has passed, and we in this body have failed
again to honor that foundational commitment. We have failed our sworn
oath and our God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly
4,000 more innocent American babies who died today without the
protection we should have given them.
Mr. 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 12,903 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 unborn babies than abortion on demand.
So tonight, Mr. Speaker, may we each remind ourselves that our own
days in this sunshine of life are also numbered and that all too soon
each one of us will walk from these Chambers for the very last time.
And if it should be that this Congress is allowed to convene on yet
another day to come, may that be the day when we finally hear the cries
of innocent unborn children. May that be the day when we find the
humanity, the courage, and the will to embrace together our human and
our constitutional duty to protect these, the least of our tiny, little
American brothers and sisters from this murderous scourge upon our
Nation called abortion on demand.
It is May 21, 2008, 12,903 days since Roe versus Wade first stained
the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own children, this
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
____________________
ENERGY PRICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let the record show that
on Wednesday, May 21, oil hit $137 a barrel and closed at about $134.
Natural gas has pushed by $11.50 per thousand and is approaching $12.
Yes, this chart I have shows the growth in energy costs. Price of oil
continues to skyrocket. I guess the part that's surprising is, as a 12-
year Member of this body, that it's not a crisis here. This Congress is
not treating energy prices as if it was a crisis.
I was looking at my notes before I came down from an October time
when I came down to the floor, and we talked then, as we were kind of
climbing through the eighties, and that day we had hit $94 a barrel.
And we all shuddered that we might be approaching $100, and here we are
a few months later, not only past $100, but at $134 and actually hit
$137 today.
Do we have a bipartisan task force by the House and Senate that would
look at how we deal with this energy crisis and how we deal with these
high prices that American consumers are struggling with? The answer is
no. Do we have a special House committee looking for solutions? The
answer is no.
Yesterday, the House had a bill. It was defined and named to cut
costs, cut gas costs. Will it? Well, the first part of the bill dealt
with trying to figure out a legal way that we can sue the OPEC
countries for not producing enough oil. Now, Saudi Arabia alone
produces 12 million barrels a day, and many of the other countries, 10,
9, 7, but we think they should produce more.
It's interesting, on this floor a few months ago, when we had some
energy bills pass that didn't have any energy in them, we claimed that
it was a new era. The era of oil was over. We were moving into the
fields, the new fields, and energy dependence on foreign countries
would disappear.
I've been in Congress 12 years. We've increased dependency almost 2
percent a year every year I've been here, and we're on a pattern that
by 2015, if we don't change, we'll be 85 percent dependent on foreign,
mostly dictatorship, unstable countries, not always friendly to us.
I think that's a serious crisis for the American people. It's a
serious crisis for American businesses to compete. It's a serious
crisis to our defense of this country.
I wish our governmental leaders, White House and legislative
included, were half as interested in energy prices as our military was.
Because when I talk to the leaders of the Air Force specifically, who
use a huge amount of our energy flying our planes, they want 60 percent
of their energy to be non-foreign, and they're working judiciously to
do other fuels from coal and fuels from gas and trying to have other
non-oil fuels because in oil we're just becoming majorly foreign
dependent.
Today, the Senate determined that when they return after the May
recess, they're going to deal in the week or two period with climate
change. They're going to deal with carbon taxes because they think that
a one-and-a-half percentage degree in temperature increase in this
country, in this world, is a greater threat to our future than energy
prices that most Americans can't afford, and most businesses can't
compete in the global economy if they continue.
But the Senate is not talking about energy. They're talking about a
climate bill and a carbon tax which will increase energy prices 25 to
30 percent. Much of America today hit $4 in gasoline. That means if the
Senate acts as they say they're going to, a carbon tax could easily,
everybody agrees, could increase energy prices 20 to 30 percent. So 25
percent of $4 is another dollar so we would go to $5 gasoline. And only
God knows what oil prices will be by the time they accomplish that.
Does America need to be in an energy crisis? I think not. We made a
decision several decades ago, in fact 27 years ago, a very foolish
decision. We locked up offshore production of energy on both coasts and
in much of the gulf. Every country in the world, Ireland, Norway,
Sweden, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, all green countries, all
environmentally sensitive countries, they all produce offshore. They
have different set-asides, some 20
[[Page 10316]]
miles, some 30 miles, some 15 miles. Eleven miles is the sight line.
Once it's past 11 miles, nobody can see it. All those countries, every
country produces.
Canada, thank God for Canada. We import more energy from Canada than
anybody else, our friend to the north. They produce both oil and gas
right off the coast of Maine, just above it, and right above the coast
of Washington. And since 1913, they've been producing natural gas only
in the Great Lakes, and today they're selling it to us. We get 15
percent of our natural gas from Canada, 2 percent from LNG, and the
rest we produce ourselves. We could be totally self-sufficient in
natural gas.
Now, a young lady said to me recently, she said, Mr. Peterson, I make
$320 a week. I lost my other job so I have to travel a fair distance
now to work. I'm now paying $130 a week to drive to work. She says, I
don't know how I can continue to raise my two children and make ends
meet.
What she didn't know was that the small house she has, her current
natural gas bill, on a monthly basis, $175--she pays balanced billing--
what she doesn't know is that the $12 gas or $11.70 today we're putting
in the ground now compares to $6.50 gas we were putting in the ground--
and you may say, what do you mean putting in the ground? Well, we have
great storage caverns, much of them in my district in Pennsylvania,
where we store natural gas in old salt caverns, and then we use it in
the wintertime because we can't produce, we can't pump enough out of
the ground in the heating season when we use tremendous amounts of
natural gas. So we're putting it in the ground in storage today.
Now, one of the major storage companies told me last week at a
luncheon, they're very concerned; they have not had their storage this
low in a long time, and they're very concerned because they've been
unable to buy as much LNG as they want.
{time} 2200
And they're very concerned. I said, why are you putting $11.50 gas in
the ground? Why don't you wait until the price comes down? They said,
we're afraid the price isn't going to come down. Because usually in the
spring of the season, when we're not heating our homes and we're not
running a lot of air conditioning, we use the least natural gas of any
other time of the year. So that's when we have ample supply, the price
comes down, it gets reasonable, and that's when we put it in storage
for next winter.
Later year at this time, it was $6.50, later in the summer it was $5
something. And last year we had a moderate increase in natural gas
prices, about 7, 8, 9, 10 percent, depending on what part of the
country you were in. That was moderate. Well, those who heated with
home heating oil and propane had huge increases last year. And the sad
story for Americans is those who heat with propane and home heating
fuel are going to have enormous increases this year on top of last
year's increases. And those who heat with natural gas are going to have
a major increase. We don't know how much yet.
For the first time in 2 years we have not had a storm in the Gulf,
the last two summers. That's historic. We always have storms in the
Gulf, hurricanes, that disrupt oil and gas supply. And when it disrupts
that supply, we never replace it, so it just takes it out of the
system. And whenever we have a major storm in the Gulf--when Katrina
hit, gas went from, like, $4 or $5 to $14. And that year we had a huge
increase in natural gas prices because that's what we had to pay.
Now, the LNG issue I mentioned, you know, I had a debate with the
White House some time ago, and they felt that LNG was our answer to
natural gas. I argued then, 3 years ago, and I argue now, it's not the
answer. It's a little piece of the solution. Now, what is LNG? That's
liquefied natural gas, we buy it from foreign countries a long ways
from here. Gas is cheaper in those countries. They liquefy it. They
fill these huge tankers and they come here, and then we build
controversial unloading stations. They're really not unsafe, but people
perceive them to be. And we were in a flurry to build more receiving
stations. We found out we really haven't needed them, we're hardly
using half of the capacity we have today. Why? Because we can't buy it.
When a tanker with LNG gets loaded in one of these foreign countries,
countries like Japan, who don't have any gas of their own, little
countries like Spain, and on and on the list goes, they outbid us.
Sometimes a tanker load of gas will be coming to the States, and they
will get a higher price offered and they actually turn around and go to
that country. In fact, in the heating season, when we need it, we can't
buy it on a bet.
So LNG has not been the silver bullet that many thought. And the
Secretary of Energy went around the world trying to entice LNG for this
country. And I argued that LNG is helpful, but it's not a silver
bullet, it shouldn't be our solution because, folks, between major gas
areas in the Midwest and in the Pennsylvania Appalachian region, recent
find, offshore we have an abundant volume of natural gas.
And natural gas is the clean, green fuel. And if it was more
affordable, we could be using it in our auto fleets because autos can
run on natural gas with a couple thousand dollar exchange of
carbonation and storage tanks and so forth, maybe $2,000 or $3,000 a
vehicle. We could run all of our school buses, short haul, all of our
city buses, the Washington City. Many of them are on natural gas. State
College in my district has been an all natural gas district for a
number of years now. All of their bus system--it's the third largest
bus system in Pennsylvania--they're all on clean, green natural gas.
Natural gas should be our bridge fuel. But at $12 now, and if we have
a storm in the Gulf, it would be 15 or more, those prices, it's not our
solution. But it could be our solution if we would open up the OCS, if
we would open up Alaska, if we would open up much of the Midwest and
start producing our own clean natural gas.
I have found it astounding that there is resistance to producing
energy in America. What's really happened in America, and I'll just go
a little bit more on natural gas here. Here is the natural gas prices.
The blue line is what commercial pays--they pay a little less than
households because they use high volume--and the red line is where
residents are. And folks, this is today's price at the retail. In the
fall, it's going to be off of this chart. There is going to be a huge
increase, I predict, and everybody agrees. We will have to make a new
chart because this chart won't work. Natural gas prices.
Now, is that problematic? Yeah, it's problematic, because not only do
we use natural gas to heat our homes and to run our businesses, we use
it as an ingredient. Fertilizer, about 70 to 90 percent of the cost of
making it is natural gas because that's what we make it out of. The
corn we're growing for ethanol uses natural gas to make the fertilizer
to grow the corn. If we go to a hydrogen vehicle, we will use a natural
gas.
The ethanol we use in vehicles today, the biofuels, biodiesel, those
plants consume huge amounts of natural gas. One was just proposed in a
southern State, and their projected natural gas costs for the first
year was $3.5 million and they were looking for a cheaper fuel. Natural
gas is the major ingredient in petrochemicals, polymers, plastics. We
use it to bend steel, melt steel. We use it to treat all kinds of
products. We use it to cook. We use it to bake. We use it in many, many
commercial ways.
And natural gas prices are making American businesses noncompetitive.
Dow Chemical, in 2002, a petrochemical company, the biggest in the
world, American company, a good company, they used $8 billion of
natural gas in 2002. Then we had the big spike in gas prices. In 2006,
their gas bill went to $22 billion. And I don't know what it is today,
certainly much higher. They started building their plants. These are
the best blue-collar jobs left in America, petrochemical plants,
fertilizer plants, polymer and plastic plants, plants that heat, treat
steel and bend metal and shape things. They all use natural gas as
their fuel.
And they are being endangered because natural gas is not a world
price.
[[Page 10317]]
Nobody in the world pays this price but us. It's cheaper in Canada, a
little bit. They're high because of us, because they're kind of hooked
at the hip. It's cheaper in Mexico. At the wholesale side, it's $1
something in Trinidad, South America. In Russia, it's just barely over
one dollar.
Many parts of the world--all parts of the world, in those countries,
China and India, our competitors, their natural gas prices are probably
a third of ours. That puts our companies at a huge disadvantage, not
just labor disadvantage, not just because of other high costs in this
country, energy costs have driven more jobs out of America than any
other issue, not that they wanted to leave, they just can't afford to
stay.
Now, with energy prices today, I talked about the young lady and her
job, driving to work and her home, we're going to have seniors--you
know, just the other day I had a gentleman tell me he put a new furnace
in his mother's home. But when he went to visit her last winter, she
had her temperature at 58 because she felt that was all she could
afford. And he said, John, what do I do? I don't want my mother living
at 58 degrees, I want her to be warm. So he's looking at some sort of
heater in the one room where she sits in the evening so she can be
toasty warm, maybe a pellet stove or a gas stove or something that
keeps that room warm but the furnace down, not heating the whole house.
I went into a hardware store 2 weeks ago and they had their coats on.
It was chilly in there. It was a frosty morning, we had frost that
morning. And I said, it's kind of chilly in here. And he said, well,
with energy prices today, in the spring and the fall I shut my furnaces
off. We're a lumber yard, we're a hardware store, people come in here
dressed for the outside temperature, and so we just dress for the
outside temperature in our work. It saves me $800 a month in the spring
and the fall, that's 4 months, so that's $3,200 that I don't have a gas
bill--that I would pay in a gas bill, $800. Now, in the winter I pay a
lot more than that, but it's cold then and you have to have heat, pipes
will freeze, people won't come in your store if they can see their
breath.
Folks, I don't think we have any idea what we're doing to the
economic future of America, what we're doing to the quality of life of
the average hardworking poor American. Now, those who are middle class
will complain and groan and they'll pay because they have the money.
But below the middle class and the working class and the poor in this
country, when they pay their driving bill--and rural people, I
represent rural, we don't have mass transit; we drive to school, we
drive to work, we drive to church, we drive to the doctor, we drive to
the mall, we drive everywhere. And in rural areas, when the economy
shifts and you lose your job at a plant, you don't move away, you go 50
miles down the road and you get a job and then you drive to work every
day. I had a lady tell me today, my gas bill per week now is $180 a
week. And now when she gets her heating bill next winter, will she have
enough money to raise her family, heat her home, and drive her car?
Many won't.
The current energy prices have the potential of stalling this
economy. I had a person who has been dealing with energy all his life.
He is a government official. He told me about 9 months ago that he
thought $75 oil would put us in a recession and stall the economy of
this country, and in time, the world. Now he said we bounced through
that. We were just by that, and we were in the $80s then. He said, my
people and I may have been wrong, but there is a price that our economy
cannot absorb these energy prices. And folks, $134 oil? I mean, it's
almost like we're talking fantasy.
How did we get here? How did we get to this situation? Well, here's
some of the things--back to natural gas for a minute. In all of these
products, natural gas is used in making them--steam, power, and all of
these blocks. Huge amounts of natural gas. Even the skin creams that
you ladies like to keep your skin soft, that's a direct ingredient of
natural gas. The feedstock for making skin softeners is natural gas.
Well, here's where we are in energy use. Let's try to figure out how
we got here. You can see the big part of our energy is oil. And now,
66.5 percent of our oil comes from foreign countries. Natural gas is
the next largest, and coal--well, I guess coal would be the next, but
let's go to natural gas. We're 83 percent self-sufficient. We get 2
percent in fraction from LNG and about 15 percent from Canada, our good
friend in the north who drills offshore where we won't.
Now, coal basically is used in this country to make electricity, and
about 50 percent of our electricity in this country is made from coal.
Now, nuclear has been 20 percent of the energy in our electric system,
not our energy overall, but our electric system. And of course the
beige line here is hydro, and that's getting smaller because we're
taking dams out. The environmentalists don't want dams. All the
environmental community, they don't want dams in our rivers, and a lot
of them have been tore out. And we're not adding hydro anywhere, so
it's a declining factor.
Now, as you look at renewables, this is scary. Renewables are wind
and solar and geothermal and woody biomass. And the only one of those
that actually had real measurable growth in volume is woody biomass. A
little growth in wind and a little growth in solar, but the big one
that has really grown measurably is woody biomass. How did that happen?
Well, we have between 800,000 and 1 million Americans heating their
homes with pellet stoves. That's a fuel made out of waste sawdust, a
good use of biomass. We use it to heat factories. Most of the dry
kilns, where you dry your lumber, that used to be heated with fuel oil
and natural gas are now heated with wood waste. Many factories that are
in the wood business are all heated with wood waste boilers.
I have a company in my district now that builds very efficient wood
waste boilers that actually burn wood waste cleaner than natural gas;
it's an amazing ceramic-lined boiler. We recently placed those in a
hospital in my district, that boiler, and that hospital is going to
save 70 percent on their energy bill. And they're going to be using
waste sawdust and wood chips. They can even burn green wood chips, like
if a tree trimmer comes through and trims the trees and grinds it up--
and they usually find places to dump that--they can now blow that into
a tractor trailer and use it for fuel, cardboard waste, paper waste.
This hospital is going to burn all its cardboard, all its paper, all
its clean fuel, and buy sawdust and wood chips. They are going to save
70 percent on their energy bill.
Woody biomass is finding a market of its own. Now, there have been a
lot of windmills added, and they are going to be a lot more added. But
the numbers are still, you know--I keep reading articles. I read one
recently that in just a few years 100 percent of electricity could be
from wind. Folks, that's just not accurate. I read an article last week
that in a few years we'll have 20 percent of our electricity. Now, one
of the problems, you know, the grid failed in Texas recently because
they have some successful windmills. But there are two times of the day
when we need a lot of energy, that's in the morning and evening, peak
power. That's when we're running our homes and our factories
simultaneously. We're running washers and dryers and we're running hot
water and we're cooking and we're doing things, so we're using a lot of
energy in the factory and at home. Those are called peaks.
{time} 2215
Well, from 4 to 6 o'clock, if you just watch the weather, and I've
watched it, you can have a very windy day, and between 4 and 6, for
some reason, the wind calms down. There's not much breeze. So wind
farms don't produce a lot of energy sometimes on a nonwindy afternoon
from 4 to 6 when you need it. So what happens when it doesn't blow and
it doesn't turn? You have to turn on a gas generator. For every wind
and solar generator, we have to have a gas backup. Now, gas is 23
percent. Gas is now 23 percent of our electric generation. Just a
decade ago, it was less
[[Page 10318]]
than 7. We only allowed it to be peak power. We didn't allow
electricity to be made from natural gas. We thought it was too clean
and perfect to fuel and there were too many other uses for it, but
we've changed. Now we are at 23 percent. And on a hot summer day when
you have 100 degree temperatures across America and air conditioning is
just sucking up all the electricity we can produce and our grid is
struggling to stay up, every power plant that only comes on when it's
peak is running 24/7 when we have hot summer weather. Now, that's
changed things. We have never taken gas out of storage in the
summertime until last year. Last year we had 2 weeks, 2 different
weeks, when it was hot enough that we were producing enough electricity
with natural gas that we fully had a negative flow of gas out of our
storage areas for winter instead of in.
Folks, if we were to have a terrible storm in the this year, and
everybody says we're going to, and we went 2 years without it, and we
would have a very hot summer where we would use a lot of peak power and
a lot of natural gas for electric generation, we could be looking at
unbelievable natural gas prices this fall.
Now, I know the news I'm giving you is all bad news. But, folks, it's
because this Congress and three Presidents have chosen not to produce
fossil fuels.
Now, I'm for every renewable source there is. I'm for hydrogen. I
have been pushing hydrogen my whole time in Congress. We hope it
becomes a fuel of the future. I'm for wind and solar. I'm for
cellulosic ethanol because it's vital because I don't think we can get
to where they want to be with biofuels with soybeans and corn. I don't
think we can grow enough of it. I've been stunned that we haven't
opened up a lot more farmland, but we haven't. Last year we grew 20
million more acres of corn, and corn prices went from 3 something a
bushel to $6.40 and $6.50 at one point. It's just under $6 now. We
doubled and tripled grain prices. Food prices are skyrocketing because
we used 20 percent of our corn last year to make biofuels, and this
year we're projecting to use a third of our corn, and this year we are
not growing 20 million acres more; I think we are only growing 8
million acres more or we're growing 8 million acres less. Somewhere in
there that number is correct. But we're not going to grow as much corn,
and they're concerned now with the wet weather in the West that we are
not going to get all the corn we need planted.
Now, when you use grain long term and food long term for energy
source, what happens when you have a bad crop year? You're not going to
have food to eat and you're not going to have warmth. That's why
cellulosic ethanol is so important.
Now, cellulosic ethanol can be made out of switchgrass, it can be
made out of garbage, and it can be made out of wood waste. Where I come
from, we have lots of wood waste, and I think that will be of use. But
I think the one that has the most potential if in the laboratory--and
these are all ``ifs.'' But yet we have a mandate by 2030 that we have
to have 36.5 billion gallons per year of ethanol, the first 15 made
from corn and the next 20 made from cellulosic. This is a mandate, by
law. This is a process where we have not yet proven we can make it cost
effectively.
Folks, we are in a crisis in this country because we have chosen not
to drill for gas, not to drill for oil, no new fields. We have people
come up here and talk about all the unused permits, all the land that's
been leased and not drilled. Folks, if it's drillable and there's money
there to be made, it will be drilled. And they all talk about big oil,
but 80 percent of our energy is produced by small companies, people
that are in our own States. Big oil are the named marketers, but energy
is basically produced by independents. But we keep talking about these
terrible oil companies and they're the problem.
I think Exxon answered the question well. They were talking about
their profits the other day, and they said, Folks, we would reinvest in
America if offshore was open, if Alaska was open, if the Midwest was
open, but you forced us to go to foreign countries. Now we have foreign
countries nationalizing their oil patches and their oil refineries and
their oil production systems, and big oil is being gradually pushed
out, and oftentimes their investments have been captured. Sometimes
they have been paid for, sometimes not. And big oil is prepared to
produce here if we open up.
Folks, we need to open up oil and gas reserves in this country. We
need to have six or eight coal-to-liquid plants so we're not dependent
on oil forever because we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We need to
figure out how to have more nuclear plants. The 2005 bill streamlined
the process, and there are about 50 nuclear plants in the permit
process, and there are 3 or 4 about ready to be built. We need all 50
of them by 2030 to maintain 20 percent of the electric grid. Not an
increase. Hydro will continue to decrease.
This is a chart put out by EIA of the Energy Department. I disagree
with them. We have had 60 coal plants turned down, clean coal, not
dirty coal, clean coal, turned down by States because of the fear of
the carbon issue. All of those will be built in gas plants, and when
they are all built in gas plants, you will see this blue narrow and you
will see the greens widen. Natural gas is where we will be going. It's
the only place we can go. It's the clean, green fuel. But, folks, for
it to be affordable, we need to produce a whole lot more of it.
It's never polluted a beach. It's never caused pollution in this
country. It's the cleanest fuel, no NOX, no SOX,
a third of the CO2. It's almost the perfect fuel. It's
cleaner than biofuels. But for some reason, three Presidents and
Congress for 27 years have locked up not only our shorelines but much
of the middle of this country and the part of Alaska that was set aside
for energy production, 2,000 acres on a 70 million acre plot to produce
energy. With modern drilling they drill multiple wells on the same
site, and they go many directions. You don't have nearly as many sites.
Folks, America needs energy. We need energy we can afford to pay. The
working people of this country not only are not going to be able to
afford to heat their homes and drive their cars, but many of them will
lose their jobs because these energy prices, as I showed you earlier,
$14 gas, America is the only place that someone pays $14 for gas. Every
other part of the world is cheaper. Oil prices are the same everywhere.
It's a world price. But for 8 years the Dow Chemicals, the
manufacturers, the fertilizer companies have paid the highest prices in
the world for natural gas and have been asked to compete with the rest
of the world.
Energy is a crisis in America, but Congress treats it like it's not a
crisis. We do goofy things like trying to sue OPEC, and we know we
don't have standing to sue other countries. They don't come under our
court system. We're trying to wiggle our laws around so we can sue
them. That's a waste of time. We need to produce energy.
Also, I have a natural gas bill, the Outer Continental Shelf. In my
bill it's natural gas only, offshore. We use the royalties for
renewable research. We use royalties to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. We
use royalties to clean up the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, the
Everglades. Folks, if we would produce energy offshore, we can allocate
the royalties to fund the renewables.
Today we were arguing over and fighting over the extensions for the
tax incentives for wind and solar and geothermal and all the
renewables. We extended them for 1 year. Our investment companies are
going to spend a billion dollars on wind and solar when in a year from
now, there may not be that incentive there that makes it work.
Folks, this Congress has failed us. This Congress continues to fail
us. This Congress needs an energy policy. This White House needs an
energy policy. And the people running for President of this United
States need to prove to the Americans before they elect them that they
have an energy policy that they're going to bring to this country to
provide us with the gas and the oil and the renewables and clean
energies and it's going to be affordable for Americans to live their
lives, run their farms, run their businesses.
Folks, I've listened to hours and hours of presidential debates.
Energy
[[Page 10319]]
was seldom mentioned, and it's certainly not been a platform of the
current candidates. We need a person running for President, Americans
need to demand of those running for President, ``How are you going to
produce?''
We have those who talk about green collar jobs. I'm for green collar
jobs. But let me tell you, if we don't bring affordable energy to
America, the blue collar jobs won't be here. They'll be gone, and we
don't know how many of the green collar jobs. We need them both.
I'm for plants to build windmills. I'm for plants to build solar. And
when we learn how to store wind and solar so that we can make it during
the night when we don't need it and use it in the daytime when we need
it, then it will work. But until we do that, it's on the margins. If we
double wind and solar in 5 years, it will be less than 1 percent of our
energy. I hope we can do that, but that's still not very much energy.
But the American public have been led to believe that we are holding
renewables back, that we're not for these energy-efficient cars. There
are incentives, folks, of thousands of dollars to buy energy-efficient
cars. There are incentives to do wind and solar. Unfortunately, they're
not long term. Those who are investing are gambling because we just
renewed them a little bit at a time. We just renewed them for a year.
Folks, we need to renew them for 5 to 10 years. We need to have it out
there, and then if it isn't working, we stop doing that.
But, folks, there are those who say we need to conserve, and we do,
and we will at these prices. But let me tell you that in a later speech
sometime I'm going to show you the American people are using far less
energy in America per capita today than we did a few years ago. We've
done more than people give us credit for. We have more efficient
appliances and more efficient engines and things than we had many years
ago. We have done better than any other country in overall energy
conservation. Folks, we haven't done enough, but I want to tell you $4
gasoline or $5 gasoline and $14 gas to heat our homes are going to
force us to do a lot of things.
But America doesn't have to be in this situation. Yes, we need the
new kind of fuels, renewable fuels. But until they are ready, we can't
decide, as a Congress and a White House, that we're not going to
produce.
Let me just tell you who some of the perpetrators are. The
environmental groups of America own this Congress. Sierra Club rails
against shale oil production. Over a trillion barrels of shale oil in
the West. We can't do that.
Green Peace says we must phase out fossil fuels. Folks, how do we do
that? Ninety-six percent of our energy is fossil fuels. How do we stop
that? That's what we're doing. We're phasing them out before we have
the replacement.
The Environmental Defense Fund: ``Power plants and smokestacks are
our public health enemy number one, and we must do away with them.''
That's our jobs, our factories, folks.
{time} 2230
League of Conservation Voters; coal to liquids, wrong direction.
Well, should we do coal to liquids or should we do more foreign
dependence on the Mid East? That is our choice.
Defenders of Wilderness; every coastal State is in harm's way when an
oil rig goes up. Folks, that is not true. We haven't had an oil spill
since 1969. We have never had a gas spill. When a gas well lets gas
out, it goes in the air. Dissipates. Natural Resource Defense Council;
coal mining destroys land. Coal plant emissions cripple and kill. We
have clean coal technologies with much cleaner emissions than we have
ever had, but we are turning them down and not building them. We are
using old dirty coal plants because they can't build the new ones.
That's our environmental policy.
Center for Biological Diversity; oil and gas drilling on public land
has a devastating impact. Does it have to? It can be done right.
Friends of the Earth; liquid coal is dirty and costly. Liquid coal
doesn't have to be dirty and costly. We have ways of doing it.
North Africa, or South Africa, I guess, is leading the way with
liquid coal. That is making gasoline and diesel out of coal. And we
have lots of it. We need to be working at it and learning how to do it
cleanly so we are not dependent. Folks, we are 66 percent dependent on
foreign unstable countries. We have no control over prices. A storm in
the gulf and we have another major spurt in energy prices.
One of our sending countries, and here's who we get our energy from.
We produce 33.7 percent of our own oil, we import 66.3 percent of our
oil. Canada provides 12 percent of our oil; Mexico, 9.3; non-OPEC
nations, 8.9; Ecuador, 1.3; Saudi Arabia, 9.6 percent; Venezuela, 7.5.
Our friend, Venezuela, 7.5 percent of our oil comes from there.
Nigeria, a stable country, questionable, 7.2; Angola 3.3 percent; Iraq
3.2; Algeria, 3.1; Kuwait, 1.2; other OPEC is .06. That is our oil.
That's where we get our oil from.
Folks, we don't have to be dependent on it. America is rich in
resources. Natural gas should be our bridge. Clean vehicles on natural
gas. Natural gas should be the fuel of the future, and our industries
shouldn't have to pay the highest price in the world for natural gas so
they are forced to leave here. Americans shouldn't be forced to live in
homes that are cold in the wintertime because they can't afford to heat
them. People should be able to afford to drive to work.
Folks, it's a crisis in America. It should be a crisis in this
Congress. Today, the White House again spoke about we need to produce
more energy. Tomorrow I am going to write the President a letter. You
know, if he means that, he needs to lift the Outer Continental Shelf
moratorium, because we don't have one moratorium, we have a legislative
one by Congress for 27 years and we have had a Presidential one for 27
years, and he can lift it in a moment. That is how it was put there.
Bush I put it there for 5 years until we assessed the Outer
Continental Shelf, what was there. We have never assessed that. We have
never allowed seismographic out there. Then Clinton came in and
extended it to 2012, and also vetoed the Alaskan bill, ANWR, which
would be producing major oil for us today. He vetoed that. Bush II has
ignored it and refused to talk about the OCS.
Folks, we have three Presidents and a Congress with a 27-year history
of not producing affordable available energy in America, and we are the
only country in the world to lock up the Outer Continental Shelf, we
are the only country in the world that has locked up most of our
internal resources.
Congress and Presidents have been our problem. Congress needs to get
the message that it's time to stop being our problem, and we need to
have a President that leads us to energy, affordable available energy
for America.
____________________
PROGRESS IN PASSING LEGISLATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's an honor to be
before the House once again, and I think it's important that we get a
chance to come to the floor and not only share with the Members the 30-
Something Working Group, some of the issues that we have worked on in
the past, but those issues that we will continue to focus on in the
future.
With this being the ``political season'' for those Presidential
candidates, there's still a lot of work to be done here in the Nation's
Capital on policy issues that are facing real consideration before this
House and before the Senate. One may focus on what is happening in the
campaign trail. But I want to share with the Members tonight, Mr.
Speaker, on what has taken place here in the Democratic House of
Representatives, majority, and also how this House has worked with a
number of our Republican colleagues on the other side in passing major
legislation that has made it to the floor that would allow Republicans
and all Members of the House to work together on issues that the
American people are hoping that we can come together on.
[[Page 10320]]
This House has made progress in passing some 177 pieces of key
legislation, more than 70 percent with a significant bipartisan vote.
As it relates to the recent past of the last three terms that I have
been here, we have never seen those kind of numbers before. It's
important that Members on both sides of the aisle are able to come
together on legislation that all of our constituents can agree on and
that we can illustrate to those that are out there that are saying,
Well, you know, can Democrats and Republicans work together, can
Democrats put forth legislation that Republicans can vote for, can
Republicans vote for measures that Democrats bring to the floor, and I
think through the leadership of the Speaker and the majority leader and
also the majority whip and Democratic caucus and the vice chair and the
rest of our leadership, the proof is in the pudding.
I want to say that the 177 measures that have gone through this House
and the 70 percent that have passed with a significant bipartisan vote
is what the American people called for, what they wanted. So many
Members of the House ran on, I am going to Washington, DC to represent
you, I am going to Washington, DC to make sure that you pass sensible
legislation, and I am not necessarily running to be a part of the
Democratic caucus or to be a part of the Republican caucus or carry a
special-interest interest.
I think that when we looked at the new direction that the American
people were looking for back in the 2006 elections in November, they
got it. Measures that would have never made it to the House floor have
made it to the House floor.
I have to speak of a number of my colleagues that were on the floor
prior to our new Democratic majority back in the Republican-led
Congress that said, If you give us the opportunity to lead, we will
lead in a way that you will be proud and that you would feel good about
the leadership that you have in the House of Representatives. We were
not only--I mean we weren't speaking to just independents, we weren't
even speaking to just Democrats. We were speaking to all Americans,
including Republicans and those that could not even vote yet, that they
would have a voice on this floor, that they would have an opportunity
to see a majority that would allow legislation to come to the floor
that would change their lives.
I also would like to say out of the 177 key measures that were
passed, 125 of those measures had the support of more than 50
Republicans in this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you're a part of our new majority makers that are
here. I think that it's important that we reflect on the past so we can
see what the future is going to be about. I see a bright future in this
House, you see a bright future in this Congress, and I think if the
American people engage themselves as Americans and not as Democrats or
Republicans or independents or Green party, or what have you, saying
that they are looking for a House that would provide the kind of
opportunities that they deserve for a Congress, for a government,
provide the opportunity that they deserve, and they can find faith in
what the 30-Something Working Group will share with you tonight.
These bipartisan votes that have been signed by the President include
the Economic Stimulus Act, College Cost Reduction and Access Act, the
9/11 Commission Recommendations. For instance, let me put a pin right
there. The 9/11 Commission recommendations was supported and was a
bipartisan commission that brought about these recommendations under a
Republican President, a Republican Congress, that the Republican
Congress would not endorse and would not pass and the President did not
support. But once this Democratic Congress allowed that legislation to
come to the floor as part of our Six in 06 measure, we were able to get
bipartisan support for that measure, and the President signed. So it
goes to show that being in the majority does help.
Also, the Innovation Agenda bill, the Lobbying and Ethics Reform,
minimum wage, a bill for improving and expanding Head Start, and
historic energy independence and security bill that reduced dependency
on foreign oil, I think it's very, very important that we focus on
those issues.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we look at the future
because we have so many issues that are before us even before we finish
this 110th Congress. We have to start to focus not only on how we are
going to find ourselves bringing our men and women home, and there was
a vote last week that was very historic. Never before since I have been
here in this House that the House has voted in the majority to not
continue to fund the failed policies of the Bush administration as
relates to the war in Iraq.
I also think that it's important that as we continue to consider how
we are going to approach on an emergency supplemental, approach the
emergency supplemental that the President has asked for to continue to
fund the war in Iraq, that if I could put it this way on Navy terms, If
we shoot a shot over the bow of those individuals that are in Iraq,
what I may call the Iraqi parliament, and let them know that the United
States of America will not continue to give a blank check to the fact
that they have not made the political reforms that they need to make so
that the U.S. taxpayer dollar will be spent in an appropriate way to
enable the Iraqi government to stand up on their own feet so that we
are able to provide the necessary resources to our constituents here in
our country and here in our districts.
I also think that it's important, Mr. Speaker, as we start to look at
these issues, we look at the largest increase in veteran funding in the
history of the Veterans Affairs Department, preparing for our men and
women to come back so they can receive the kind of assistance that they
deserve because they allow us to salute one flag.
I think it's also important, Mr. Speaker, and also for the Members
who realize that even though we may disagree on a number of issues, and
they are a number of issues that we disagree on, we can, if you ever
heard this, agree to disagree.
{time} 2245
But when it comes down to the votes here on this House floor for our
folks back home, I think it is important that we hold their hopes and
their dreams paramount in that debate. And because of the kind of
leadership that we have within our caucus, some 177 key votes, 125 of
those votes receiving over 50 percent Republican support, it goes to
show you or show the American people and also Members of Congress how
we can come together on behalf of the greater good.
I know that Mr. Murphy has joined us, and I want to yield some time
to him so that he can share as not only a new Majority Maker, but also
as a member of the majority, as we look at the future, as we look at
bipartisanship that we speak so highly of, that we should reflect on
what Mr. Ryan and I said when we first started working on 30-Something
some 6 years ago, that bipartisanship can only happen when the majority
allows it to happen.
I think the evidence, the evidence of not only the Congressional
Record, but the evidence of our words that we have laid on the
Congressional Record over the years, is that we hold paramount
bipartisanship, that we hold opportunity, that we hold inclusion. So if
it is someone, an American somewhere in a super-Republican district
saying do I have a voice in Congress, will the Democratic majority
allow my voice to be heard, will the values of my community be heard in
Congress and will it be allowed to pass the House of Representatives
and the Senate, I think the proof is in the pudding.
I am hoping on the 30-Something website we can have this information
placed on that website, so that Americans can go and check the record
for themselves.
One thing I take great pride in personally, Members, is that the 30-
Something Working Group, we go through a lot of research and the
members of our group believe in fact versus fiction. We bring fact to
the House floor. We do not
[[Page 10321]]
bring fiction. That is what the American people are calling for.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Meek. The honor
is also to be part of the 30-Something Working Group and to get to
spend the precious moments on the floor with you and Mr. Ryan, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Altmire and others who can't be here this
evening.
As you noted, I am a new Member of Congress. I came from the
Connecticut State legislature. I came here with some degree of
trepidation, because coming from the Connecticut State legislature, a
place in which partisanship has its day, but certainly is not the rule,
the reputation of this place, at least under the last 12 years of
Republican rule, struck fear into the hearts of a lot of new Members,
because we came from experiences, at least those of us who came from
experiences in the State legislature, where the rule was that we
reached out and worked across the aisle. The rule was that to get
anything done, you needed to have Republican and Democratic support.
The reason that in Connecticut the State legislature enjoys a level
of support and approval that the United States Congress has not
traditionally had is in part because on the most important stuff, in
Connecticut we found a way to do that.
I was the chair of the Public Health Committee for several years in
the Connecticut legislature and we passed the Nation's first stem cell
investment law. We did it with a Republican Governor. We did it on a
bill that was introduced by a Republican senator and a Republican
member of the House, even though Democrats had near veto-proof
majorities in both chambers. We did it with Republicans and Democrats.
Frankly, it didn't matter what the letter was after your name, R or D.
It was the right thing to do. So I came down here as a member of the
new Democratic majority wondering whether there was going to be a
chance for that same type of cooperation.
As you pointed out, Mr. Meek, we saw it immediately in those first
100 hours. In the agenda we put forth on energy, on the minimum wage,
on student loans, on ethics, we had Republicans and Democrats standing
together.
Now, that hasn't happened every day here on the House floor, and the
times it doesn't are the moments in which CNN and MSNBC and the talk
show pundits jump on it. But, really, when you talk about the big
things that have passed here, you have seen this House coming together.
You saw it on the farm bill most recently, and you saw it today.
For anyone that was lucky enough to be here on the House floor, Mr.
Meek, maybe you mentioned it, to see the debate on the defense
authorization bill, it was a pretty remarkable bipartisan affair. In
fact, the bill is named after the Republican ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, probably something that average
voters out there who hear about the conflict that happens in this House
every day wouldn't have expected. But there is, I hope, a growing
spirit here on the House floor that we can cross the aisle that
literally exists here on the House floor in order to pass important
things.
But we need more of it. We need more of it because the most important
issues for our constituents can't happen unless we have the votes here
all too often to overcome the President's veto. We did that today with
an incredibly important farm bill that begins the process of
transferring unjustifiable subsidies for American farmers and turns
them around to funding for conservation programs and nutrition
programs. We are going to stand up to the President when it comes to
sensible farm policy. But we need more of that.
When it comes to the GI Bill, which is this Congress' landmark effort
to once again recommit ourselves to a notion that this Nation stood
upon in the wake of World War II, that every returning GI from the
field of battle should have access to a quality education in a school
of their choosing in their State, we have withdrawn from that
commitment since World War II, and this House and our compatriots in
the Senate are attempting to make that commitment once again.
The funding for returning GIs has withered to the point that that
commitment no longer exists. If you want to come back and you can go to
school, maybe you will get a little bit of help, but you are still
going to have to pay a significant amount of money, and you are
probably going to have to do it part-time, because there has been
historically not enough money for living expenses for those GIs.
We think if we are going to ask you to be a full-time warrior for
this country in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should allow you to be a full-
time student when you come back to the United States. We should be able
to pay your way to the most expensive State college in your State, but
we should also give you a stipend in order to make that journey through
college education full time. If we are asking men and women to fight
and die for us, to sustain injuries that change their lives on the
field of battle, we should support them when they come home by
providing them with educational benefits.
But we don't have the votes here on the House floor today to override
that presidential veto, Mr. Meek. So we need more of that bipartisan
cooperation that we have seen. Democrats are willing to stand up for
returning veterans to give them a new GI Bill. We stood in lockstep as
the majority party here last week to do that. We had 30 or 40-some odd
of our Republican colleagues join us in that effort, but that is not
enough to get past the threatened presidential veto.
I can't explain to you why the President doesn't think it is the
right thing to do, to stand up for our GIs when they come back home. He
has stretched our militarily to the breaking point, and he is not
willing to sustain them when they come back to the United States.
We clearly believe that one of the most important things that we can
do in this Congress between now and the adjournment is pass that GI
Bill and recruit enough of our colleagues on the Republican side so
that we can overturn that veto. We have shown that we can do it. We did
it on the farm bill. We have done it before.
We have also shown that we can go out and make our case to the
American public so that the President changes his mind. The President,
if you remember, Mr. Speaker, first threatened he was going to veto the
college affordability bill, which transferred subsidies for banks into
subsidies for students, lowering the student loan interest rate in half
from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. The President said he was going to
veto that. But when we went out there and made the case to the American
public and asked them to make the case to the President that this was
the right thing to do in a tough economy for millions of students and
families out there that needed a little help, he changed his mind and
signed that bill.
Just recently, after making a lot of noise in opposition to our
efforts to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
put that oil instead out on to the market to lower gas prices by
anywhere, who knows, from 5 cents to 20 cents, a small but meaningful
decrease through the suspension of deposits into the SPR, after making
a lot of noise that the President was going to oppose or veto that
legislation, he ended up signing it.
So when it comes to the GI Bill, we have got two tasks ahead of us.
Let's try to build the bipartisan consensus that we have had here on
many days in the House of Representatives. Let's try to push beyond the
30 or 40 Republican Members that have supported the bill so far so that
we don't have to worry about a presidential veto. But let's go out and
talk to veterans organizations, to talk to military families, to talk
to our educational institutions.
Let's grow a coalition over the coming weeks and months so that the
President has the opportunity to change his mind, so the President has
the opportunity to stand with us on the side of returning service men
and women for the educational benefits that they deserve. Just like our
grandparents, our parents, got that benefit
[[Page 10322]]
when they came back from World War II, let's do it again for the
thousands upon thousands of GIs returning every month from the field of
battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Meek, you led off on the right note. There is an amazing amount
of bipartisan cooperation happening here, but we have got to extend it
to some of the most important measures that we can pass between now and
the end of this historic legislative session.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Murphy, I think it is important,
and I think we can do a little back and forth here in the spirit of
bipartisanship. I see one of our Republican colleagues who would like
to share a few things a little later on, and we don't want to take all
of the time, because we definitely want to hear from the Republican
side this evening in the spirit of what we are doing here.
But I think it is important, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Murphy, I think that
as we look at what is happening now, we know that we have an historic
Presidential election that is taking place. And we are still in the
primary mode, but it has a general election spirit that is there. There
are slogans out there, ``yes, we can,'' and ``yes, we will,'' and
``change that you deserve.''
It is interesting, because the President is still trying to play a
major role. We know that he will be commander-in-chief until January,
but I think it is important, especially for some of our friends on the
Republican side, that they pay very close attention to the past to
understand the future.
There was a day and time when the American people were not really
paying close attention to what is going on here in Washington, DC There
was a time that young people who are concerned about tomorrow more than
anyone else in this country were not paying attention to the likes of
many of the individuals that are paying attention to politics now.
I remember one of the general demographics was 50-plus in the
country. You have to make sure that you meet the needs of those
individuals. But now that goes from 50-plus all the way down to 17\1/
2\, where Americans can register, and then at 18 they will get their
voter registration card. So we have a full kind of age range there of
folks that are paying attention to what is happening here.
I remember in the early days with Mr. Ryan and I, and then when Ms.
Wasserman Schultz got here, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and
myself, and now the Majority Makers such as yourself and others are now
coming to the floor. But back in the early days we used to share with
our friends on the Republican side, you have a choice to make. Either
are you are going to be on the New Direction agenda and give the
American people what they deserve versus the special interests, or, Mr.
Speaker, those Members will be watching the Congress on C-SPAN and
other television outlets that would allow them to view what we are
doing here on the floor at home while we are here voting.
We are in the majority now. We have won three special elections in
quote-unquote ``Republican'' districts that were seen as Republican
districts. But what I believe in and what I have subscribed to is the
American spirit over politics. I believe people are now looking at
their families and looking at their children and looking at their
grandparents and looking at themselves in the mirror and saying, am I
using the power that I possess with my voter registration card towards
the benefit of my family, my community, my State, my country? Am I
using that to the full advantage that I have as an American citizen? Or
am I voting a party, or a personality, or what is politically quote-
unquote ``correct''?
{time} 2300
And I think that question has come back in many of these districts
and throughout the country of saying, I have to vote what is best for
my children, for my parents, for my grandparents, for myself, for the
fact that the economic situation is bad, for the fact that I don't have
health care for so many Americans.
I have traveled this country, Mr. Speaker, on Presidential election
and I have paid attention to what is going on. And every time the
question is asked: How many people without health care? A super
majority of the people put their hands up. Of course, I don't put my
hands up because I am a Member of Congress and I have health care. But
my constituents didn't say, hey, you know, Kendrick, we are going to
vote for you to be in Congress so that you can have a health care plan
for you and your family. We love you that much. Don't worry about us.
And they didn't vote for any of us for that reason. I don't think any
Member of Congress ran for office saying, I am running to make sure
that I can have health care, and then maybe you will have health care.
But for some reason, some of our friends on the other side of the
aisle didn't get that message or they have forgotten the message. But I
am hoping, as we start looking at these issues, that, Mr. Murphy and
Mr. Speaker and members, that more Republicans start understanding that
this is not the Republican or executive committee back in their county
or in their parish or whatever the case may be; that this is the U.S.
Congress, and they may have been Federalized by the people in their
district, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, in a general
election to come here, provide the kind of representation that they
woke up early one Tuesday morning looking for.
I say all of that to say this: That if it was about politics, Mr.
Murphy, members, we would be home now. We would say nothing. We would
allow the Republican minority to continue to get further and further
and further in the minority. But the American spirit within our
Democratic majority allows the 177 bipartisan votes, that we celebrate
the 125 bipartisan votes, over 50 Republican members voting for
Democratic measures that would never have made it to the floor on the
Republican Congress.
The record speaks for itself. I am so happy and so glad that we have
the kind of leadership, we have the kind of caucus that says, you know
something? We are going to move in a new direction that the American
people have called for, Mr. Murphy. Some people call it change now.
Change is the big word of this election, because people have had a
taste of change already in this House and in the Senate. They want that
change in the White House.
Now, I want us to kind of go back and forth here, but I just want to
share a little bit of the record because some work has been done here.
I think it is important that we look at the kind of fight that--and I
am going to call some of the things out that you have identified.
We have the new GI bill that extends benefits to veterans, and it
provides and restores the full 4-year college scholarships for Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans, and the President has threatened that he is going
to veto that.
My question is, to the Republican minority, are you going to follow
the President with this whole veto issue? If he does, will you leader
up and override his veto?
Because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we have an override once a
week, maybe, just maybe--because the President is not running for
election again. I just want to let my Republican colleagues know, they
are. Some of them are, those that are not retiring. That they may want
to pay attention to what the American people are saying versus what may
be coming from the White House, because it hasn't worked, because they
are in the minority right now.
I think it is also important for the responsible timeline for
redeployment that requires Iraqis to pay their fair share of the
restoration and other Iraqi policy restrictions that was in H.R. 2642,
which is the 2008 supplemental that the President has threatened to
veto again. Will our Republican colleagues write the Republican and
say, listen, we are already in bad shape as a Republican minority in
the Congress, we can't follow you on this. We will join Democrats and
override your veto.
That is the American spirit. That is not saying, well, I am going to
be a good Republican. Because it is important that we understand that
folks
[[Page 10323]]
didn't elect us to be good Republicans or good Democrats saying, well,
I am going to follow the President because the President says that it
should happen. The first version of the 2007 supplemental, the
President vetoed the bill on May 1. I think it is important that folks
understand this and the opportunities that we have to continue to build
on the bipartisanship.
The responsible timeline for redeployment of troops, another bill
that passed, H.R. 4156, the President has threatened that he is going
to veto that. Also, H.R. 2956, that carries some of the same language.
I mean, we are putting these bills out there. That bill passed 223-201.
The President is threatening he is going to veto that.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let's just step back. There is no question
when you are talking about where do American people stand on the
redeployment of the troops out of Iraq. None of these bills suggest to
do it tomorrow or the week after. This is the responsible redeployment
of troops out of Iraq. Do it in a planful way that maintains the safety
of those troops as they leave, and tries to do our best to try to
maintain a stable government that we leave behind. There is no question
where the American people stand on that. That is not just you and me
listening to people when we go back home; that is also every poll that
we have seen of the American public over the last 2 years.
There is no question, Mr. Meek, where people stand on the GI bill.
The numbers are off the charts when you ask folks if they think that
this country should guarantee a college education to every returning
warrior from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no guesswork involved here.
Now, I don't know where the President gets his direction from on his
veto threats. But for all of us that are sitting here deciding whether
we vote for these things in the first place or override the President's
veto when they come back, there is no research that has to be done in
the public opinion. There are no guesses that have to be made. This is
all just common sense, whether you are listening to it when you go back
to the district or you are reading the public opinion polls, Mr. Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Public opinion polls and what the American
people want are pretty much the same thing, but also common sense kicks
in at some point. I mean, if I was very--hypothetically speaking, Mr.
Speaker, and I do mean very hypothetically. If I was a Republican
Member of Congress at this point, I would kind of think, hmm, let's
see, am I willing to follow the President that is going to retire and
have a pension and have all of the things being a past two-term
President in this country? Or am I going to stand up on what is right
and what is sound as it relates to policy?
Mr. Murphy, again, another bill, and I am making sure that the
Members understand, because I think here in the 30-Something Working
Group, you know, in Congress there is always some mystery about, well,
you know, I didn't quite know what was in that bill.
I am sorry, let me go back. We are about to celebrate Memorial Day
for those and pay tribute to those that serve this country, those that
have died to allow us to salute one flag, those that allow us to be
here under the illumination of the lights here, to be in a free
country, to be in a country that one can stand on the floor and speak
freely, Republican or Democrat, what have you; for any American or any
resident of this country to speak in opposition of its government and
say, I disagree; or, this is the way I feel.
Many of us Members of Congress have traveled to countries where folks
don't have that privilege or that opportunity, and we try to share that
kind of democracy and that freedom of those that have fallen.
I tell a story, Mr. Speaker, of my kids and I, we rode our bikes on
the mall here in Washington, DC, where we leave this building and pass
the Washington monument and pass the World War II memorial, and all of
those States are recognized on those pillars that are around that
monument and that great fountain that they have there illuminated at
night. And we go on and ride on and we go to the Lincoln memorial where
so many Americans go to reflect on this great President who served our
country. And we run into the Last Outpost, where our veterans from
Vietnam are there selling patches and keeping that last outpost open
for those that are missing in action. And then we take the opportunity
to go by the Korean War memorial that is there and the Vietnam wall of
those that lost their lives. And so many Americans will travel to the
capital city to celebrate that and to be able to recognize those
individuals and celebrate their lives and their commitment to our
country and on and on and on, and the number of monuments and great
heroes and sheroes that are there, even women that have fought in
conflicts.
I say all of that to say this: That with all of that history and all
of that greatness and all of the spirit of this great country, that we
have to take a step back sometimes and say, am I voting in the right
direction? Am I doing the right thing? Am I listening to quote/unquote
leaders that may be in our caucus or whatever the case may be? And
especially on the Republican side, I think it is important because I
think it is a very unique time in history and I think they need to be
on the right side of history, because history has played a role in
Members of Congress' reelection to Congress.
And so when I start looking at legislation that the President has
decided that he is going to veto, Mr. Murphy, I think it is important.
And I want to also on the record call out on 3159, it is again a
responsible troop redeployment cycle that is based on Senator Jim
Webb's bill that enhances national security and supports our troops and
families. And increasing troops are better at home in between
deployment. The President has threatened that he is going to veto that.
Will our Republican colleagues, those that are not voting in a
bipartisan way, will they follow the President in that veto, or will
they write a letter to the President and say no way, will they write
President Bush and say, on House Bill 1684, the fiscal year 2008
Homeland Security Authorization Act that the President has threatened
that he is going to veto that will provide some $139.8 billion to the
Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect the homeland?
Will they write a letter or will they send a message to the White House
that they are willing to override that veto?
At the same time, again, time after time again the Coast Guard
Authorization that passed the House, H.R. 2830, which is the Coast
Guard Authorization, the President, this also passed--now, this is very
interesting, Mr. Murphy. This authorization has passed the House. I am
smiling because it is almost laughable if it wasn't a serious moment.
The Coast Guard plays such an important role to homeland security,
especially from a State like mine in Florida, and especially as we look
at the East Coast and the West Coast. They play such a very important
role, and they have been asked to play a role that they have never
played before in protecting the homeland. This bill, this piece of
legislation passed 395-7, with 165 Republicans voting ``yea,'' or yes,
the President has threatened he is going to veto that.
So Mr. Murphy, I think you get the picture. I don't mean to go on and
on and on. On every page of pages to go on and on and on, two or three
times the President has said we are going to veto that piece of
legislation.
We have 170 major pieces of legislation that Republicans have voted
for in a bipartisan way. We have 125 pieces of legislation that over 50
Republicans have vote in the affirmative. I think that some of our
friends on the other side have to get the picture. And I can tell you,
and I am going to yield to you and then I am going to say one more
thing and then we are going to yield back, because I want our friend to
be able to have an opportunity before 12:00 midnight so he can get in
his points. I think I know why that we don't have more Republicans
voting in a new direction or voting for change in Washington, DC on
behalf of not only their very own constituents, but also on behalf of
the American people.
[[Page 10324]]
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, the President is not running
again. The President doesn't have anybody to answer to, so the
President is free now to act on his own instincts, to act on his own
set of advice. And that means, to the extent that this President was
ever listening to the American public, he is not doing it now. He
doesn't need to do it. And, as you said before, he is not up for
reelection. But every Member of this House, with the exception of those
people who are retiring, are.
{time} 2315
And so people in the Republican Caucus, our friends on the other side
of the aisle, have got to think about what's the motivations behind the
President's threats here. Is it because of a political calculation
where he wants to be on the right side of where the American people
are, or is it because he has no one to answer to any longer?
And sometimes, you know, we get a little bit of frustration when we
go back home, Mr. Meek. People say, well, why hasn't more happened on
the war coming to a close? Why haven't you done more to solve our
health care problems?
Well, the answer is what happens just up Pennsylvania Avenue. We've
put legislation on the President's desk to planfully exit Iraq. He
vetoed it. We've put legislation on his desk twice to ensure 4 million
more kids. Both times he vetoed it.
Over and over again, with the Republicans and Democrats standing
together, we've put legislation on his desk, even under that threat of
veto, and he has continued to stand against the American public, Mr.
Meek.
I think we can still have some victories from here to the end of the
year. I still think we can have moments where this House comes together
and overrides presidential veto.
I can't think of a better bill to exercise the will of the American
people as expressed through this House than on the GI Bill, giving
educational benefits to troops. I have no idea why the President has
decided to exercise his veto threat against that legislation. If
there's anything that we should be able to come together on, it's on
supporting our troops when they come back home.
I think we should have done it for those 4 million kids that should
have gotten health care insurance. I think that we should have done it
when it comes to the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. But let's at
least do it as one final salvo with this Democratic Congress and a
Republican President when it comes to standing up for our GIs, Mr.
Meek. It would seem to be the one place, amidst a lot of the times that
we disagree here. You named all the moments on which we have agreed.
But the culmination of a remarkable amount of agreement, amidst a
reputation of disagreement in this House, would be to pass that GI Bill
with a veto-proof majority, put it on the President's desk, dare him to
veto it, knowing that we're going to have the votes to override when it
comes back.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Murphy, it's very interesting. As
I speak to fact versus fiction, I can't help but think of our colleague
who already, quote-unquote, has the Republican nomination, one of our
friends over in the Senate. And he coined something, I think, earlier
this week or last week as the slogan for the forward campaign on the
Republican side. Change that you Deserve.
Okay. Well, I would say to my Republican colleagues that have decided
to follow the leadership, the elected leadership that they have now on
the Republican side that are saying stay the course, follow the
President, object, what have you. Change that you deserve, I think, is
something that one should think about.
Case in point. I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on television.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I'm a lawyer, Mr. Meek, so if you need
some help I'll walk you through it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That's fine. My wife's a lawyer too, so I'm kind
to lawyers. But let me just say, you remember the letter that the
Republican leadership wrote to the Speaker?
I don't want you to pay attention over here, I just want you to pay
attention over here. The Republican leadership wrote a letter saying,
you said you were going to do something about gas prices. We're waiting
you to do something about gas prices in America. And we're concerned
about all of this, and you have not fulfilled your promise.
And I think that it's important. If we can, I want to put something
here because I don't want to have that on the chart there.
Well, let me just for the case of keeping the 30-something piece
together, because I don't want to get into names, I'm just going to do
this because I don't like to like point out anything as it relates to
an individual Member of Congress, even if they're leadership.
But I just want to say, as it relates to doing something about gas
prices, these are all the measures that we've passed here in this House
that the Republican leadership decided not to vote for. But they want
to criticize, and they want to encourage their leaders, I mean, their
caucus to vote against change and a new direction.
Now, even the Republican nominee on the Republican side has said
change that you deserve. If things were going so well and the policy
was so great, why do we have to talk about change that you deserve?
Why can't we say we'll keep doing the things that we've continued to
do, and we'll continue to have the problems that we have now?
I'm just saying this to my Republican colleagues, because, not that,
you know, many of them are friends of mine. But I'm saying, as it
relates to the policy that we have to pass, that the American people
need now--we're not here for political purposes. We're here because we
want to move an agenda forward.
I think it's important when we look at OPEC price fixing. These are
the Republican leaders, or down the leadership line, that voted against
that. And when you look at the top individual, as it relates to
influence within the caucus, voted no on every last measure that
Democrats have put forth, price gouging, renewable energy, energy
security.
Second person in charge voted for three of the four that we have put
forth before this Congress. Signed the letter.
The third person in charge voted against price gouging and also
renewable energy. Those are two votes of the four that have taken
place.
The fourth person in charge voted for two measures, voted against it,
renewable energy and also energy security, but I said it correctly,
voted for two of the measures that we put forward.
The fifth person in charge voted no on every last measure. Signed the
letter.
The sixth person in charge voted against every measure that we put
forth to be able to give the American people a fighting chance in this
whole issue of price gouging, this whole issue of no OPEC. And we call
OPEC, these are oil producing companies for price fixing, countries for
price fixing, renewable energy, energy security, voted against every
last one of them.
On down to the bottom, voted three times against those measures and
voted two times.
I said all of that to say that I think that some of these individuals
that are influencing the minds of, or the vote of those individuals
within the Republican caucus that don't want to be a part of the 177
bipartisan major votes, or don't want to be a part of the 125 votes
that we've taken, plus 50 Republicans that have voted for it, I think
that the argument, especially when we look at the individual that is,
quote-unquote, running on the Republican side for President of the
United States, of saying change that you deserve, we speak fact in the
30-Something Working Group and we do not speak fiction.
If it was political, Mr. Murphy, and I say this in closing, if it was
political, we would be home right now, you know, relaxing past 11
o'clock at night.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield for 1 minute?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Absolutely. You have the last word.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Your point is this, is that we've seen in
the last 2 or 3 weeks, both the Republican minority and our Republican
Presidential candidate all of a sudden start
[[Page 10325]]
to use the word ``change.'' Well, to them it's just a word. To them
it's just a part of their slogan.
To the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, it's what we
live by, it's why we're here, it's why we get up in the morning, it's
why I gave up my entire life to run for the United States Congress;
it's why you have given up 18 hours a day to do this job, because we're
here to change the place. It happens to be in everything that we talk
about because it's the definition of why we're Members of Congress.
For the Republicans here in the House and the Republican Presidential
candidate, it's just a word. And that's what I think the American
people are beginning to understand. That's why the American people are
turning out in record numbers for our Presidential candidates on the
Democratic side, and that's why we have won the last three competitive
seats for special elections here in the House, because the voters out
there, the American public, are figuring out that change is nothing if
it's just a word coming out of your mouth. You've got to live it.
You've got to breathe it, which is what we're doing here, Mr. Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I want to thank you for your
comments. I couldn't say it better.
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we're going to yield
back our hour earlier so my good friend from Texas will be able to
share with the Members of the House what he would like to share.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.
____________________
FOOD FOR FUEL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is
recognized from this moment until midnight.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker, and I thank the Members on the
Democratic side for yielding back their time early.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to do something a little different tonight.
Normally I come down here to the floor of the House to talk about
health care. But we've heard a lot recently about where this country is
in regards to its energy policy. We've heard a lot recently about the
high cost of food and foodstuffs, and whether or not that has been
related to this country's energy policy.
You can call it what you want. Call it Murphy's Law, Newton's Third
Law, or just the plain old law of unintended consequences, but when a
government as large as ours is, and I assure you, after being here for
5 years, it is an extremely large Federal Government; but when a
government as large as ours mandates the use of anything, there will be
downstream effects, downrange effects that sometimes you can't predict
and certainly are beyond your control.
A case in point is the growing crisis of food versus fuel and the
debate that rages in Congress.
Now, the early part of this month, the 5th of May, I hosted an event
billed as Food vs. Fuel: Understanding the Unintended Consequences of
United States Policy. I invited representatives from the farming
community, food companies, consumers, domestic charities and the press
in an attempt to get a 360-degree view of this issue.
Now, just for the record, I want to mention the names of the people
who were kind enough to spend the morning with me earlier this month
and whose opinions were represented at the round table. And it was a
diversity of opinions. This was certainly not a one-sided debate.
We had Jon Doggett from the National Corn Growers Association, their
Vice President of Public Policy. We had Scott Faber of the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, the Vice President for Federal affairs of
that group; Bob Young of the American Farm Bureau, their chief
economist. Bob Young is a Ph.D economist. Candy Hill of Catholic
Charities, who is a Senior Vice President for Social Policy and
Government Affairs, primarily working in the domestic realm. And last
but not least, Bob Davis, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who's
reported on a number of international economic issues over the years.
And it was really Mr. Davis' reports in the Wall Street Journal that
prompted my interest in this subject.
When we had assembled this panel of experts, I asked the experts,
with the policy now of so much of our corn being turned into fuel, and
with food shortages an inevitable result, are America's biofuel
programs the cause or the effect?
Now this is kind of ironic because we just voted again on the farm
bill today. But here's a poster that shows perhaps some of the
consequences or the unintended consequences of putting corn in the gas
tank and ignoring other needs, other uses that that ear of corn might
go to.
Has Congress been fooled into a bad fuel policy at the expense of our
national food supply?
I went into this round table with an open mind. We had a panel that
was really evenly distributed. Certainly there was no stacked deck
against anyone or in favor of any one particular policy. And perhaps
it's unique for a Member of Congress to not arrive at a conclusion
until looking at the data.
So this food versus fuel matchup, is, in my opinion, another example
of the law of unintended or unforeseen consequences. And, of course,
the symptoms are all around us. They're impossible to deny. You turn on
the TV, you click on your Internet, you read about the ever escalating
cost of food prices, both domestically and across the globe, and the
news is frequently paired with stories of shortages, heart rending
stories of shortages, and the resulting unrest that food shortages
cause abroad.
On April 14, the Wall Street Journal reported ``surging commodity
prices have pushed global food prices 83 percent upward in the last 3
years.''
My hometown paper, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the newspaper of the
largest city in my district, on May 2 of this year, they had an opinion
piece in the Star Telegram that discussed how the indirect cost of
ethanol hurt Texans at the grocery store.
{time} 2330
Mr. Speaker, just recently, according to the Bureau of Logic Or
Statistics, between the beginning of March and the beginning of May
when I held this hearing, a dozen eggs, the price was up 35 percent; a
gallon of milk, the price was up 23 percent; a loaf of bread, the price
was up 16 percent.
Now, we still need to eat and so Americans are getting creative in
which groceries they purchase, and they're using grocery store coupons
in record rates. In 2007 alone, consumers redeemed 1.8 billion coupons,
an increase of over 100 billion coupons from the previous year. Now
overall, the Department of Agriculture estimates that food prices will
jump 4 to 5 percent this year.
Now, those price increases may seem modest, but for the poorest
Americans who spend a greater portion of their family budgets on food,
it is, in fact, becoming a tremendous burden.
Cherries across the country are being challenged by the rising food
prices. It's more expensive to buy food. Donations are going down, and
more people are then turning to charities for assistance.
So they've got a rising population that is coming in and asking for
help, and their prices that they have to pay in order to provide that
help is going up. And clearly those two are on unsustainable paths.
Catholic Charities USA, one of the largest social networks in helping
almost 8 million people a year, has seen a 60-percent increase in
people seeking food and nutrition services across the country since
2002. In 2006 alone, Catholic charities saw a 12-percent increase in
the number of individuals seeking help in order to provide food for
themselves and their families.
Rising food prices are not merely a domestic issue. They have
international implications as well.
Let me share this poster, and this is from a recent Washington Post
series called, The Global Food Crisis, which depicts the haves versus
the have-nots in the industrial world versus developing countries. And
this graphic
[[Page 10326]]
reads, ``North America helps feed the world supplying about half of the
growable grain exports. People in developing countries spend up to 80
percent of their money on food. So when food prices rise sharply,
partially as a result of supply changes in North America and other
producing countries, the world's poor feel it the most right in the
gut.''
The results of tighter supplies are reverberating literally across
the globe, and they do have dire consequences. In Haiti, the capital
city of Port-au-Prince, rioters have taken to the streets to protest
higher food prices. The violence has gotten so significant that in fact
it resulted in a governmental change in that country. Similar unrest
has erupted in Egypt, Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Ethiopia.
May 5 was prior to the devastating events, the cyclone in Burma and
the earthquake in China. I submit that all of these problems that were
of significant proportion on May 5 of this year have now gotten that
much larger because of the results of those twin catastrophes, and
we're only just now about to enter into hurricane season in this
country.
Robert Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, estimates that 33
countries are in danger of experiencing similar unrest as a result of
food prices and food shortages. While food shortages hurt people the
most, they also harm American policy. One of our greatest diplomatic
strengths is through foreign aid. Last week, President Bush requested
an additional $770 million in emergency food assistance for poor
countries responding to rising food prices that have caused social
unrest in several nations.
So what is the conventional wisdom on higher grocery bills here at
home and lower food stores at an international level?
In my previous life of as a physician, I was given to making
diagnoses. My diagnosis in this situation, as a result of many experts
saying that the United States' biofuel policy is to blame for increase
in food prices and a decrease in food supplies; the argument then is
that Federal mandates to produce more biofuels have, number one,
diverted more crops from food to fuel, and two, increased the demand
for crop building blocks like fertilizer, water, and transportation.
And those inputs have increased the cost of biofuel costs like corn and
soybeans and other nonbiofuel crops like rice and wheat as well.
The International Food Policy Research Institute suggests that
biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent
increases in global commodity prices. Within the United Nations, the
Food and Agricultural Organization has predicted that biofuel
production, assuming current mandates continue, will increase food
costs by 10 to 15 percent. That's an important point: assuming current
mandates continue an additional 10 to 15 percent, in addition to the 5
percent rise that we've already seen this year.
Well, let's talk a minute because there is some confusion on what is
a biofuel.
If you Google ``biofuel'' on the Internet, you will find out the
following: A biofuel is defined as a solid, liquid, or gas fuel
containing or consisting of or derived from recently dead biological
material, most commonly plants. This distinguishes it from fossil fuel
which is derived from biological material that has long been dead--been
dead a long time. And what are the building blocks of biofuel?
Commodities like corn, soybeans, sugarcanes, vegetable oil that can be
used either as food or to make biofuels.
And probably the best or most well-known biofuel is, of course,
ethanol. In the United States, the primary source of ethanol is from
corn currently, 95 percent. Ethanol is a type of alcohol made by
fermenting and distilling simple sugars. It's the same compound that's
found in our alcoholic beverages, and its primary use in the United
States, as a fuel, is as an additive to gasoline.
Now, the ethanol policy in this country goes back to the Arab oil
embargoes of 1973 and 1979. Since that time, the production of fuel
ethanol has been encouraged through the Federal tax incentives of
ethanol-blended gasoline.
In 2005 when the Republicans were in control of Congress, the Energy
Policy Act established a renewable fuel standard which mandated the use
of ethanol. 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel must be blended with
the Nation's gasoline by 2012.
But then last year right at the end of the year, Congress passed the
Energy Independence and Security Act which increased this renewable
fuel standard to require 36 billion gallons of biofuel additives for
transportation fuels by 2022.
Now, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, 3.2
billion bushels of corn will be used to produce roughly 6 billion
gallons of fuel ethanol during the current corn marketing year,
September 2007 through the end of August of 2008.
Well, let's talk a little bit about corn because it is important.
This poster tells a little bit about two different types of corn:
field corn and sweet corn. Field corn is the most--is what is mostly
grown in America. It's primarily used to feed livestock and to produce
ethanol. So field corn is used for fuel, and sweet corn is used for
human consumption.
This graphic also explains to some degree how the field corn is used.
The pie chart there at the bottom shows a little less than half, about
47 percent of field corn, the type of corn used to produce ethanol, was
used for animal feed; about a quarter, 24 percent, was used for
ethanol; 19 percent was exported, and 10 percent was used for direct
human consumption in various forms.
Now, those who believe biofuels are to blame for rising food prices
argue that its fundamentally wrong to divert food meant for tables into
gas tanks when there are those going hungry both here at home and
abroad. Additionally, they argue that ethanol production is fighting
off a potential environmental crisis and a potential dependence on
foreign oil, but we face an actual crisis in food production in the
United States.
Ethanol opponents also point to significant scientific research
regarding the environmental impacts of ethanol production. And what are
they? It's important to look at those environmental impacts.
Scientific research shows that the use of crop lands for biofuels
actually increases greenhouse gasses through emissions from land-use
change. Work by Tim Searchinger of the Georgetown Environmental Law and
Policy Institute, which recently appeared in Science magazine, argues
that the land-use change from forest to grassland to new cropland
nearly doubles greenhouse grass emissions over 30 years and increases
those greenhouse gasses for over 150 years.
The important innovation in this research is that prior studies would
show a 20-percent savings in emissions neglect the impact of land-use
change, and clearly the doctor's work shows that that is significant.
Now, as farmers respond to the rising demand for corn, they create
new cropland, and they create that what? Out of grassland and forest.
Plowing up more forest or grassland releases more of the carbon dioxide
previously stored or more of carbon previously stored in plants and
soils through decomposition and that which is burned when fields are
cleared by burning.
Also, the loss of forests and grasslands prevents the plants from
performing their own form of carbon sequestration in the stocks and
leaves and roots of the plant.
Significant critiques have risen from this research. For example,
Searchinger's work supposes that there's a constant yield per acre of
corn, but if an acre of corn yield has increased over 300 percent since
1944, then new technologies have contributed to a 30 percent increase
in the last decade. Research conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences shows the biofuel mandates are contributing to air pollution,
water pollution, and they do compound water shortages.
Now, on the other side, and we heard from the other side during this
hearing, those who support the use of corn for ethanol. In terms of
economic security, ethanol supporters argue that the
[[Page 10327]]
production of biofuels goes a long way in helping end our dependence on
foreign oil. We can grow our own fuel here at home thus supporting our
domestic economy. At the same time, we don't have to rely on rogue
regimes in unstable parts of the world for the vast majority of our
fuel needs which enhances our national security.
The rising prices of food aren't caused by biofuel mandates, per se.
Growing demand in global markets, especially China and India, drive up
the price. Additionally, they point out that shortages caused by bad
weather in places like Australia, and in fact they point out that--
people who support the use of biofuels point out that climate change
may be to blame since certain areas of the world where grain was once
grown no longer have the weather to support those types of crops.
Another issue that is often brought up is meat consumption in China
has risen from 25 kilograms per person in 1995 to over 50 kilograms per
person in 2007. On average, it takes 5 kilograms of grain to produce 1
kilogram of meat, while the demand for meat has grown 28 kilograms per
person. The resulting demand for grain has increased by 7.8 billion
bushels.
So with these two conflicting and opposing viewpoints, what do you
think? Is it biofuels that are causing the high grocery prices, or is
it just a result of natural forces within the world? And if the issue
is that increased biofuels production is contributing to the high cost
of food, what would be the answer? What would be the prescription for
curing that ailment?
So certainly we're going to continue to provide hunger relief both
here and at home. But we could look at freezing the renewable fuel
standards and rolling back some biofuel mandates, certainly providing
increased incentives to make breakthroughs on cellulosic ethanol so we
won't be using our food to fuel our cars.
And that may be what is at the central part of this argument. As well
intentioned as the policy was in 2005 when the Republican House of
Representatives dictated renewable fuel standard, and as forward-
thinking as it was in December of this past year when the Democratic
House increased that renewable fuel standard, it all depended upon the
advancement in technology.
{time} 2345
We can't continue to turn this much foodstuff into fuel for our
automobiles and trucks. We depend upon this policy, depend upon the
advancement, the breakdown of the cellulose in the plant wall to make
ethanol and not distilling of ethanol from the starch and sugars that
are contained in the grain component.
Until we achieve that breakthrough of cellulosic ethanol, and I
believe it will occur one day, but until that time occurs, it is almost
not reasonable to assume that we will be able to meet the country's
growing transportation fuel demands through production of ethanol,
certainly by diverting our foodstuff into that product.
Another thing that we could do, and this was a point that was so
eloquently stated by Mr. Davis in the Wall Street Journal, we can
change the way the United States handles its delivery of foreign aid,
the commodity versus cash approach. The current approach is to buy
excess United States production of grain and then deliver that product
to the country where the crisis exists, but if we were to shift that
approach and begin supporting local agriculture in developing Nations,
it could break the cycle of dependence on foreign aid and break the
cycle of hunger and famine.
I don't think there's any question at this point that we have to be
looking at other sources. Now, we had a pretty interesting debate on
the floor of this House this past week, and we heard the Democrats talk
about that in their last hour. This was the debate about the temporary
stoppage of filling what's known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Now it's a small amount that would actually be put back in to increase
supply in this country, but for the first time, for the first time,
there appeared to be genuine, bilateral, bipartisan agreement that
increasing supply was a way to positively affect fuel prices here in
this country.
Every other debate that we've had, certainly since I've been in
Congress, when it comes down to an issue of increasing supply,
generally 90 percent of the people on my side of the aisle are in favor
of it, and 90 percent of the people on the other side of the aisle are
opposed. ANWR is perhaps the poster child for this, and we heard a
great deal about that in the hour previous to the last hour when Mr.
Peterson from Pennsylvania talked about where we would be today had
then-President Clinton not vetoed the provision that would have allowed
drilling in ANWR in 1996, some 12 years ago.
We're told it would take 7 to 8 to 10 years to actually deliver
finished product out of ANWR into the marketplace in this country.
Well, guess what, if we had started that in 1996, we'd be using that
oil today, and we wouldn't be feeling the repercussions in the price at
the pump that we see today. There wouldn't be the pressure on diverting
food into fuel if only we'd paid attention to supply.
But maybe that day is at hand. Again, we had broad bilateral
commitment, broad bipartisan commitment, both sides of the aisle in
this House that said temporarily we're going to stop filling the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve because, my opinion at least, there was
broad bipartisan agreement that increasing supply even just a little
bit would be a positive effect on prices at the pump.
So how much more good could we do if we moved off that minuscule
amount and looked at some of the other ways to increase the supply? Now
there's not a person in this Congress, I don't think, that feels that
someday we're going to get a lot of our fuels from different sources
than we see today, but right now, it's coal, it's natural gas, it's
oil. That's what's available to drive our economy, and sure, we may
want to pivot to a day where that energy production comes from
somewhere else, but until we get there--and we are not there yet on
cellulosic ethanol by a long shot, and if we turn all this stuff into
ethanol for our cars, we have unintended consequences and unintended
repercussions downrange and downstream that are quite severe.
So this Congress really needs to take a serious look at ways that we
can increase supply because, again, apparently all agree that
increasing supply is going to be a good thing as far as its effect on
fuel prices in this country.
So maybe ANWR's too emotional. Maybe we can't do it. Maybe we just
have to leave that one in the too-hard box for a little while, and I
would say, okay, but bring us your ideas from the other side of the
aisle. Let's not make it all about turning this stuff into something we
can put in our automobiles. Let's make it about how do we deliver more
usable energy for the American people, how do we maintain the American
economy.
Is it going to be nuclear? We can talk about that. I'd love it if we
talked about that. Is it going to be drilling on the Outer Continental
Shelf as Mr. Peterson outlined or in the Intermountain West, to the oil
shales in Canada? The fact is, we've got reliable supplies of energy
here at home, but we've put an embargo on American energy and that,
quite frankly, just simply does not make any sense.
But it was a new day here in Congress this week when both sides, in a
bipartisan fashion, said, by golly, increasing supply is going to be a
good thing for the American energy consumer, and we're going to do
that. And we only did a little bit by temporarily stopping filling the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but maybe that new day has dawned and
we're now going to have a meaningful discussion on where the common
ground is, where we can meet in the middle and work on increasing that
supply for the American people.
Because, quite honestly, until we get to the day of the promise of
cellulosic ethanol, this is not going to be a formula for success, and
in fact, unintended consequences of this behavior may have absolutely
devastating and dire consequences around the world.
You know, the law of unintended consequences used to be that it took
[[Page 10328]]
almost a generation for those unintended consequences to come home and
to come back around and work their effect. But we're in a time now
where the effect of unintended consequences can be felt very, very
quickly.
We heard in the last hour the discussion about the reauthorization of
higher education and student loans. Well, remember, we did something to
student loans in September of last year. Then we had to turn around and
undo it in April or May of this year because of the unintended
consequences and the fact that we were driving up interest rates at the
same time that availability of credit was coming down. And we were
worried that no student loans were going to be available when this
summer's crop of students went to apply for those loans in June, July
and August.
Unintended consequences have a way of coming around extremely
quickly, and the unintended consequences of increasing the renewable
fuel standard that this Congress undertook in December of 2007 has very
quickly come home and the repercussions and reverberations are being
felt around the world, and it's leading to instability in governments
in this hemisphere.
Is that something we want? We always talk about the world that we
want to leave for our children. Is that the type of world we want to
leave for our children where worldwide hunger and worldwide deprivation
lead to instability in developing countries? I don't think so.
I think it is time that this Congress needs to take action. After
all, part of this crisis is of our doing. We should understand, this
Congress should understand, the leadership of this Congress should
understand about unintended consequences.
Now a lot of people who serve in this House are politicians, and
that's not a great surprise. And politicians have the urge to respond
to public opinion and try to mold their policies to reflect public
opinion. But we need to be careful when we respond like that. As
policymakers, we have an obligation to enact, well, responsible policy.
That's what we're sent here to do. We're sent here to find sensible
solutions.
Now Congress can't control foreign demand. Congress, I don't think,
can control the weather. There may be some in this body who feel that
they can, but we can address the effect of unintended consequences of
our biofuel policy which diverts a quarter of our national corn supply
to ethanol production, a quarter, a quarter of our annual national corn
supply to ethanol.
Congress and our President have nothing but good intentions--we care
so deeply about people--nothing but good intentions in promoting the
expansion of renewable fuels, but ethanol is not the energy security
silver bullet that many people believe it to be.
Last year, we burned 24 percent of our national corn supply as fuel,
and we reduced our oil consumption by almost 1 percent. Unintended
consequences are almost always unenvisioned consequences as well. If
you lack the vision to look over the horizon and see what's coming
next, unintended consequences are likely right around the corner.
Obviously it was not the intent to cause distress both at home and
abroad, but good intentions are not sufficient cause for Congress to
plant its head in the sand and ignore what is becoming increasingly
obvious.
Our renewable standard is creating problems with food prices here at
home and food shortages abroad. It's leading to destabilization of
world governments because of the effect of hunger and deprivation in
developing countries. It is time for this Congress to get it right.
It's time for this Congress to reexamine those renewable fuel
standards, back off for a while until the price situation stabilizes in
the world market. And we have to get serious about increasing energy
supply to run this economy, to run what Ronald Reagan described as the
last best hope on Earth for democracy.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Carter (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today after 3 p.m. on
account of a family medical emergency.
Mr. Coble (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today until 4:30 p.m.
on account of attending the graduation ceremony at the United Stated
Coast Guard Academy.
Mr. Sensenbrenner (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today until
4:30 p.m. on account of a doctor's appointment.
Mr. Tiahrt (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of a
funeral in the district.
____________________
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. Murphy of Connecticut)
to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Langevin, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Poe) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Tancredo, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Calvert, for 5 minutes, today and May 22.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED
A concurrent resolution of the Senate of the following title was
taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 79. 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.
____________________
BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House reports that on May 20, 2008
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bill.
H.R. 2419. To provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 56 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 22, 2008, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL
Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for Speaker-Authorized Official Travel during the fourth quarter of
2007 and the first quarter of 2008, pursuant to Public Law 95-384 are
as follows:
[[Page 10329]]
AMENDED REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1 AND MAR. 31, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Michael Burgess................... 2/20 2/24 Kuwait................... ........... \3\ 328.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 328.00
........ .......... Iraq..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
........ .......... Pakistan................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
........ .......... Afghanistan.............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial Air Fare................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,022.00 ........... ........... ........... 8,022.00
Hon. Barbara Cubin..................... 2/15 2/21 Brazil................... ........... 1,616.00 ........... (\5\) ........... ........... ........... 1,616.00
Hon. Barbara Cubin..................... 3/24 3/25 Egypt.................... ........... 278.00 ........... (\5\) ........... ........... ........... 278.00
3/25 3/26 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 ........... (\5\) ........... ........... ........... 75.00
3/26 3/29 Pakistan................. ........... 998.31 ........... (\5\) ........... ........... ........... 998.31
3/29 3/30 Czech Republic........... ........... 431.12 ........... (\5\) ........... ........... ........... 431.12
Hon. John Shimkus...................... 1/16 1/19 Lithuania................ ........... 255.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 255.00
Commercial Air Fare................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,057.39 ........... ........... ........... 8,057.39
Hon. Vito Fossella..................... ........ .......... England.................. ........... (\4\) ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
........ .......... France................... ........... (\4\) ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial Air Fare................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,429.01 ........... ........... ........... 8,429.01
Round trip rail fare: London/Paris. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 434.00 ........... ........... ........... 434.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 3,981.43 ........... 24,942.40 ........... ........... ........... 28,923.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Per diem used in Kuwait only.
\4\ Per diem to be provided on amended report.
\5\ Military air transportation.
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, May 8,
2008.
REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1 AND MAR. 31, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. John Tanner....................... 12/31 1/2 New Zealand.............. ........... 300.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 300.00
1/2 1/4 Antarctica............... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/4 1/5 New Zealand.............. ........... 156.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 156.00
1/5 1/7 Australia................ ........... 350.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 350.00
Hon. John Larson....................... 1/7 1/8 Canada................... ........... 288.00 ........... ........... 485.14 ........... ........... 773.14
1/8 1/12 United Kingdom........... ........... 650.00 ........... ........... 1,877.34 ........... ........... 2,527.34
Hon. Jon Porter........................ 1/7 1/9 France................... ........... 376.00 ........... 8,545.21 ........... ........... ........... 8,921.21
1/10 1/11 Azerbaijan............... ........... 188.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 188.00
1/11 1/15 Turkey................... ........... 342.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 342.00
Hon. Phil English...................... 1/5 1/9 France................... ........... 376.00 ........... 8,545.21 ........... ........... ........... 8,921.21
1/10 1/11 Azerbaijan............... ........... 188.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 188.00
1/11 1/15 Turkey................... ........... 432.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 432.00
Hon. Phil English...................... 1/18 1/19 Belgium.................. ........... 433.53 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 433.53
1/20 1/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/21 1/22 Germany.................. ........... 49.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 49.00
Hon. Allyson Schwartz.................. 1/24 1/25 Kuwait................... ........... 228.00 ........... 8,036.76 ........... ........... ........... 8,264.76
1/25 1/25 Iraq..................... ........... 228.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 228.00
1/25 1/26 Kuwait................... ........... 228.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 228.00
Hon. Jerry Weller...................... 2/16 2/18 Ecuador.................. ........... 590.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 590.00
2/19 2/20 Bolivia.................. ........... 318.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 318.00
2/21 2/23 Argentina................ ........... 313.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 313.00
Hon. Devin Nunes....................... 3/24 3/24 Cape Verde............... ........... 242.58 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 242.58
3/25 3/28 South Africa............. ........... 1,468.94 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,468.94
3/28 3/30 Ghana.................... ........... 528.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 528.00
3/30 3/31 Cape Verde............... ........... 295.70 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 295.70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 8,568.75 ........... 25,127.18 2,362.48 ........... ........... 36,058.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL, Chairman, May
14, 2008.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
6741. A letter from the Comptroller, Department of Defense,
transmitting a report of a violation of the Antideficiency
Act by the Department of the Navy, Case Number 07-06,
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1517(a); to the Committee on
Appropriations.
6742. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Extension of
Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects [DFARS Case
2008-D008] (RIN: 0750-AF93) received April 22, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
6743. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Deletion of
Obsolete Restriction on Acquisition of Vessel Propellers
[DFARS Case 2007-D027] (RIN: 0750-AF91) received April 22,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Armed Services.
6744. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Excessive Pass-
Through Charges [DFARS Case 2006-D057] (RIN: 0750-AF67)
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Armed Services.
6745. A letter from the Assistant Secretary Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the 38th report
required by the FY 2000 Emergency Supplemental Act, pursuant
to Public Law 106-246, section 3204(f); to the Committee on
Armed Services.
6746. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Defense Priority and Allocations System (RIN: 1991-
AB69) received March 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6747. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of
Education, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Notice
of Final Priority, Definitions, Requirements, and Selection
Criteria -- received May 5,
[[Page 10330]]
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
6748. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Mgmt. Staff, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Use of Materials
Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics [Docket No.
2004N-0081] (RIN: 0910-AF47) received May 13, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
6749. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Meeteetse, Wyoming, Fruita, Colorado, Ashton,
Burley, Dubois, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Rexburg, Shelley,
Soda Springs, and Weston, Idaho, Lima, Montana, American
Fork, Ballard, Brigham City, Centerville, Delta, Huntington,
Kaysville, Logan, Manti, Milford, Naples, Oakley, Orem,
Price, Randolph, Roosevelt, Roy, Salina, South Jordan,
Spanish Fork, Vernal, Wellington, and Woodruff, Utah,
Diamondville, Evanston, Kemmerer, Marbleton, Superior,
Thayne, and Wilson, Wyoming) [MB Docket No. 05-243 RM-11363
RM-11364 RM-11365] Received April to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6750. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Third Periodic
Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the
Conversion To Digital Television [MB Docket No. 07-91]
received April 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6751. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Wireline Comp. Bur.,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Promotion of
Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets [WT
Docket No. 99-217] received May 6, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6752. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of DTV Consumer
Education Initiative [MB Docket No. 07-148] received May 6,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
6753. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Carriage of
Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of
the Commission's Rules; Implementation of the Satellite Home
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Local Broadcast Signal
Carriage Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues [CS Docket
No. 00-96 CSR-5978-M] received May 7, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6754. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Department
of Agriculture, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6755. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
6756. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6757. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6758. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6759. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6760. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6761. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, transmitting a copy of the annual report in
compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act during the
calendar year 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
6762. A letter from the Director, Office of Standards and
Variances, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Sealing of Abandoned Areas (RIN: 1219-AB52)
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
6763. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``the National Park System
Uniform Penalty Amendment Act''; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
6764. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``To designate as wilderness
certain lands within the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in
the State of Michigan''; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
6765. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``To modify the boundary of
the Voyageurs National Park in the State of Minnesota''; to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
6766. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``To adjust the wilderness
boundary at Lava Beds National Monument in the State of
California, and for other purposes''; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
6767. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``the Cape Cod National
Seashore Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act''; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
6768. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``To rename Martin Luther
King, Junior, National Historic Site in the State of Georgia,
as `Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Park' '';
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
6769. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``the Rio Grande Wild and
Scenic River Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008''; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
6770. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``To authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to administer the Juan Bautista de Anza
National Historic Trail in coordination with appropriate
entities in Mexico, and for other purposes''; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
6771. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace
National Historic Park Act of 2008''; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
6772. A letter from the Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
annual report on the accomplishments of the cultural
resources programs of the National Park Service during Fiscal
Year 2006; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
6773. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Small
Business Administration, transmitting the Administration's
final rule -- Seals and Insignia (RIN: 3245-AF68) received
May 6, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Small Business.
6774. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Small
Business Administration, transmitting the Administration's
final rule -- Small Business Size Standards; Adoption of 2007
North American Industry Classification System for Size
Standards (RIN: 3245-AF66) received May 6, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Small Business.
6775. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Graves Marked with a Private Headstone or
Marker (RIN: 2900-AM93) received May 14, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
6776. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Certification Requirements for Imported Natural
Wine (2005R-002P) [Docket No. TTB-2007-0006; T.D. TTB-70; Re:
T.D. TTB-31 and Notice No. 51] (RIN: 1513-AB00) received
April 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
6777. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Relief for Recipients of Certain Direct
Deposits of 2008 Economic Stimulus Payments [Announcement
2008-44] received May 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
6778. A letter from the Assistant Secretary Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the 2007 Annual
Report on United Nations voting practices, pursuant to Public
Law 101-246, section 406; jointly to the Committees on
Foreign Affairs and Appropriations.
6779. A letter from the Chairman, National Transportation
Safety Board, transmitting a legislative proposal and
justification to amend the Independent Safety Board Act of
1974 to provide authorization for the National Transportation
Safety Board; jointly to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, and the
Judiciary.
[[Page 10331]]
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. WAXMAN: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
H.R. 4106. A bill to improve teleworking in executive
agencies by developing a telework program that allows
employees to telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked
in every 2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes;
with an amendment (Rept. 110-663). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. WAXMAN: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
H.R. 4791. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to
strengthen requirements for ensuring the effectiveness of
information security controls over information resources that
support Federal operations and assets, and for other
purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 110-664). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. REYES: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. H.R.
5959. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 110-
665). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. CARDOZA: Committee on Rules. H. Res. 1218. A resolution
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5658) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for
other purposes (Rept. 110-666). 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. HONDA (for himself, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Cleaver, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Holt, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Langevin, Ms.
Lee, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Mr. Markey, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr.
George Miller of California, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rothman,
Ms. Sutton, Mr. Towns, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Van
Hollen, Ms. Watson, Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Hare,
Mr. Courtney, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Clarke, and Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez of California):
H.R. 6104. A bill to provide for the coordination of the
Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education initiatives; to the Committee on Education and
Labor, 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. McCOTTER (for himself, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, and Mr. Carter):
H.R. 6105. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to require that concurrent
resolutions on the budget limit the growth of Federal
spending to the mean of annual percentage growth of wages and
gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, the
Budget, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mrs. BONO MACK:
H.R. 6106. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to temporarily reduce the excise tax on diesel fuel and
kerosene to the rate applicable to gasoline; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself and Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland):
H.R. 6107. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing
program that will result in an environmentally sound program
for the exploration, development, and production of the oil
and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, 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 Mrs. MYRICK (for herself, Mr. Culberson, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Regula, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Souder, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Linder,
and Mrs. Drake):
H.R. 6108. A bill to provide for exploration, development,
and production activities for mineral resources on the outer
Continental Shelf, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on
Science and Technology, and 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. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. Mica, Ms. Norton, and
Mr. Graves):
H.R. 6109. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the pre-
disaster hazard mitigation program, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin:
H.R. 6110. A bill to provide for the reform of health care,
the Social Security system, the tax code for individuals and
business, and the budget process; to the Committee on Ways
and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, Education and Labor, Rules, and the Budget, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Michaud,
Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Hare, Mr. Payne, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Wu,
Ms. Clarke, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Scott of
Virginia, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Hirono, and Mr.
Hinojosa):
H.R. 6111. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to
require employers to keep records of non-employees who
perform labor or services for remuneration and to provide a
special penalty for employers who misclassify employees as
non-employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BACA:
H.R. 6112. A bill to provide for the monitoring of the
long-term medical health of firefighters who responded to
emergencies in certain disaster areas and for the treatment
of such firefighters; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, 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 Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas:
H.R. 6113. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to
require each agency to include a contact telephone number in
its collection of information; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. DOYLE (for himself and Mr. Dent):
H.R. 6114. A bill to amend the Veterans' Benefits and
Services Act of 1988 relating to testing for infection with
the human immunodeficiency virus; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 6115. A bill to amend title 1, United States Code, to
eliminate any Federal policy on the definition of marriage;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRIJALVA:
H.R. 6116. A bill to allow homeowners of moderate-value
homes who are subject to mortgage foreclosure proceedings to
remain in their homes as renters; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. HILL:
H.R. 6117. A bill to require the Comptroller General of the
United States to analyze the impacts of Federal regulations
on small businesses; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. MORAN of Virginia:
H.R. 6118. A bill to amend the charter of the Gold Star
Wives of America to remove the restriction on the federally
chartered corporation, and directors and officers of the
corporation, attempting to influence legislation; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROSS (for himself and Mr. Van Hollen):
H.R. 6119. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to make a technical correction to ensure
that all physicians, as defined for purposes of the Medicare
Program, are permitted to perform required face-to-face
examinations and prescribe Medicare covered durable medical
equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
[[Page 10332]]
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms.
Berkley, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Castle, Mr. Chabot, Mr.
Ellsworth, Mr. Langevin, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
and Mr. Kennedy):
H.R. 6120. A bill to direct the Attorney General to provide
grants for Internet crime prevention education; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. TURNER (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and
Mr. Perlmutter):
H.R. 6121. A bill to provide for health care benefits for
certain nuclear facility workers; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. WALZ of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Loebsack, Mr. Hall of New York, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Michaud, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Hare, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. Ramstad):
H.R. 6122. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive policy on
the management of pain experienced by veterans enrolled for
health care services provided by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SPACE (for himself, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mrs.
Schmidt, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Ryan of
Ohio, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Regula, Mr. Tiberi, Mrs. Jones
of Ohio, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Hobson):
H.J. Res. 86. A joint resolution recognizing the efforts of
the Ohio Department of Mental Health and the Ohio Department
of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services to address the stigma
associated with mental health and substance use disorders; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.J. Res. 87. A joint resolution limiting the issuance of a
letter of offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of
defense articles and defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Grijalva,
and Mr. Cohen):
H. Con. Res. 360. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
important social and economic contributions and
accomplishments of the New Deal to our Nation on the 75th
anniversary of legislation establishing the initial New Deal
social and public works programs; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mrs. Bono Mack):
H. Res. 1217. A resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that the prevention of mental
disorders and substance abuse among children, youth, and
young adults, and the promotion of mental health and wellness
among these populations, should be a public health priority;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. LATTA:
H. Res. 1219. A resolution celebrating the symbol of the
United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of
Flag Day; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 154: Mr. LoBiondo, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Van
Hollen, and Mr. Doolittle.
H.R. 245: Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Culberson.
H.R. 346: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 369: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 418: Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Carson.
H.R. 423: Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 463: Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 506: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 552: Mr. King of Iowa and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 583: Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 594: Mr. Hill.
H.R. 642: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 661: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 715: Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 726: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 871: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 971: Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H.R. 1032: Mr. Udall of Colorado and Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 1043: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1064: Mr. Markey.
H.R. 1069: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 1148: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 1157: Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 1185: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 1193: Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Loebsack, and Mr.
Kagen.
H.R. 1283: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey and Ms. Harman.
H.R. 1343: Mr. Fortenberry.
H.R. 1363: Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Murtha, and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 1366: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 1405: Mr. Crowley.
H.R. 1524: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1606: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1621: Mr. Salazar, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 1641: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 1644: Mr. Markey.
H.R. 1738: Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 1761: Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 1881: Mr. Bachus and Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
H.R. 1889: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 1940: Mr. Franks of Arizona and Mr. Lamborn.
H.R. 2032: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 2045: Mrs. Jones of Ohio and Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 2067: Mr. Pence.
H.R. 2073: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 2183: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 2244: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 2266: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 2370: Mr. Wamp, Mr. Al Green of Texas, and Mrs.
Musgrave.
H.R. 2493: Mr. Walberg and Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 2508: Mr. Tancredo.
H.R. 2550: Mr. Latta and Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 2652: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2686: Mr. Childers.
H.R. 2880: Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Tiberi, and Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2885: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 2897: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 2914: Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 2933: Mr. Tiahrt.
H.R. 2943: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 2991: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 3008: Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H.R. 3016: Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 3089: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 3132: Ms. Sutton, and Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 3140: Ms. Matsui and Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 3202: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 3232: Ms. Solis.
H.R. 3245: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 3334: Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 3404: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 3438: Mr. McGovern and Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 3457: Mr. Marchant and Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 3543: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms.
Harman, and Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 3544: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Wu, and Mr.
Furtuno.
H.R. 3622: Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania and Mr. Sali.
H.R. 3654: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 3700: Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 3800: Mr. Walberg.
H.R. 3834: Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 3870: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 3934: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 3944: Mrs. Napolitano and Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California.
H.R. 3995: Mr. Roskam.
H.R. 4044: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 4052: Mr. Walsh of New York.
H.R. 4063: Ms. Clarke.
H.R. 4139: Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
H.R. 4206: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 4273: Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 4344: Mr. Kanjorski.
H.R. 4449: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 4461: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 4464: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Pence.
H.R. 4544: Ms. Bean, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Childers, Mr.
Cazayoux, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Tanner.
H.R. 4651: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 4836: Mr. Wu, Mr. Fortuno, and Mr. Markey.
H.R. 4900: Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 4926: Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Walsh of New York, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Loebsack, and
Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 5229: Mr. Dreier.
H.R. 5265: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Boyd of Florida.
H.R. 5315: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 5352: Mr. King of New York.
H.R. 5437: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 5445: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 5447: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 5454: Mr. Platts, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr.
Bilirakis, and Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 5469: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 5515: Mr. Sessions and Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 5542: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 5564: Mr. Marshall.
H.R. 5573: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Holden.
H.R. 5580: Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 5603: Mr. Holden.
H.R. 5626: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 5627: Mr. Hill and Mr. Campbell of California.
H.R. 5632: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 5635: Mr. Hill.
H.R. 5646: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 5656: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 5662: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 5673: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 5674: Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms.
Giffords, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, and Mr. Davis of Alabama.
H.R. 5677: Mr. Turner.
H.R. 5700: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 5704: Mr. Miller of North Carolina and Mr. Paul.
H.R. 5721: Mr. Boozman and Mr. Bishop of Utah.
H.R. 5722: Mr. Boozman.
H.R. 5731: Mrs. Musgrave and Mr. Latta.
H.R. 5734: Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Latham, Mr.
McNulty, and Mr. Boswell.
[[Page 10333]]
H.R. 5737: Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 5761: Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 5766: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 5774: Mr. Carson, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Eshoo,
Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 5793: Mr. Stupak, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Hill, Mr. Doyle, and
Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 5815: Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 5854: Mr. Kagen and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 5868: Mr. Latta, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, and Mr.
Young of Florida.
H.R. 5874: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 5878: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 5892: Mr. Carnahan, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 5895: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 5907: Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 5918: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 5925: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 5935: Mr. Holden, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 5944: Mr. Terry and Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 5954: Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 5955: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 5960: Mr. Souder, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Holden, and Mr.
Kildee.
H.R. 5971: Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 5973: Mr. Hall of New York.
H.R. 5974: Mr. Kline of Minnesota.
H.R. 5984: Mr. Dreier, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Platts, Mr.
Cantor, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. English of Pennsylvania,
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Kingston,
Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Regula, Mr. Camp of Michigan, and
Mr. Hayes.
H.R. 6008: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 6023: Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 6025: Mr. Herger, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Conaway, and Mr.
Souder.
H.R. 6026: Mr. Everett, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
of Florida, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr.
Miller of Florida, Mr. Keller, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Manzullo, Ms. Fallin, Mr.
Boustany, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs.
Musgrave, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Mr. Platts, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Reynolds,
Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Mr. Feeney, and Mr. Camp of Michigan.
H.R. 6030: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 6045: Mr. Matheson and Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 6047: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 6062: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 6068: Mr. Towns and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 6075: Mr. Kagen and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 6092: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Sestak, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Akin, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Scott of
Georgia, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Price of
Georgia, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Everett, Mr. Linder, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Turner, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Broun
of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr.
Marshall, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
H.R. 6098: Mr. King of New York.
H.J. Res. 22: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.J. Res. 79: Mr. Grijalva.
H. Con. Res. 108: Mr. Carson.
H. Con. Res. 163: Mrs. Cubin.
H. Con. Res. 294: Mr. Sali.
H. Con. Res. 336: Mrs. Napolitano, Mrs. Miller of Michigan,
and Mr. Marshall.
H. Con. Res. 338: Mr. Payne, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr.
Conyers.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Boustany, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Feeney,
Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Hill, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Space, and Mrs.
Miller of Michigan.
H. Res. 111: Mr. Carson.
H. Res. 881: Mr. McHenry, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Costa, Mr.
Gordon, Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Melancon.
H. Res. 888: Mr. Brady of Texas.
H. Res. 1008: Mr. Pitts, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Bilbray.
H. Res. 1056: Mr. Payne and Mrs. Christensen.
H. Res. 1067: Mr. Taylor.
H. Res. 1106: Mr. Feeney.
H. Res. 1139: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts.
H. Res. 1177: Mr. Hare, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Honda.
H. Res. 1179: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Baca, and Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H. Res. 1183: Mr. Gonzalez.
H. Res. 1192: Ms. Matsui, Mrs. Napolitano, and Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California.
H. Res. 1200: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 1205: Mr. Gene Green of Texas and Ms. Sutton.
____________________
DELETION OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 6041: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
[[Page 10334]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
A PROCLAMATION HONORING ELOSIE HAGAN FOR HER SERVICE WITH THE AMERICAN
RED CROSS
______
HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, Elosie Hagan began volunteering with the Red Cross in 1957;
and
Wheras, Elosie Hagan is 99 years young; and
Whereas, she was recognized for her more than 50 years of volunteer
services during the American Red Cross of Knox County's 2008 Volunteer
Awards program; and
Whereas, Elosie Hagan continues to exemplify a special dedication to
service and community; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that along with her friends, family, and the residents of
the 18th Congressional District, I commend and thank Elosie Hagan for
her contributions to her community and country.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MAYOR BOB PHELPS
______
HON. KENNY MARCHANT
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my
congratulations and thanks to Mayor Bob Phelps for all the years of
service he dedicated to the city of Farmers Branch, Texas.
Mr. Bob Phelps was born in Oklahoma, but got to Texas as soon as
possible. He married his high school sweetheart, Dee, in 1955 and they
started their journey together in Dallas. They have a son, Rob, and a
daughter, Kim, and three grandchildren, Shane, Shealee and Dusty.
At the age of 19 they bought their first home in Farmers Branch in
1957. Bob started his career with State Farm in 1963 and has won many
trips and awards. Some of his accomplishments are: member of the
Presidents Club, which is the top 50 agents in the company, select
agent, Millionaire Club numerous times, Legion of Honor Club, and the
Bronze Tablet Club.
After being involved in several elections in Oklahoma helping his Dad
run for county sheriff, Bob became interested in serving the great city
of Farmers Branch and was appointed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment
and Building Code Board of Appeals in 1984. Bob was first elected to
the City Council in 1986 and served 9 years on the Council. Bob was
elected mayor of Farmers Branch in May of 1996 and was unopposed in
1999 and 2002 and 2005.
Bob served on numerous boards where he showed the same dedication and
determination expressed as the mayor of Farmers Branch. Again, I would
like to thank Mayor Bob Phelps for his service to the community.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF AMIT ZUTSHI
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Amit Zutshi,
whose untimely death at age 30 on March 19, 2008 saddened the entire
community.
Amit was a resident of Fremont, California and shall be remembered
fondly for the difference he made in the lives of others. Amit comes
from an active family committed to community service. He followed his
family's dedication to activism and the promotion of unity.
Amit was born at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and graduated
from Mission San Jose High School in 1995. He attended graduate school
and was working toward an MBA from University of Phoenix after
receiving degrees in information technology and business. He was
employed by Microsoft and also worked for an eCommerce company in Santa
Clara, California.
On May 30, 2008, Amit's younger brother Rahul will introduce the Amit
Zutshi Foundation. The Foundation's focus will be on children in need
of social and community based services to help them thrive. May 30 also
marks the 7th annual meeting of the Indo American Community Federation,
a group Amit's father Jeevan founded to celebrate diversity.
It is fitting that Amit's memory be honored by the formation of the
Amit Zutshi Foundation. Amit leaves a legacy of hard work and caring
for others. The Foundation will honor his legacy.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SUE WILKINS MYRICK
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, due to illness, I was unable to
participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have
voted as follows:
May 13, 2008: Rollcall vote 306, on motion to suspend the rules and
agree--H. Res. 1181, Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people
of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by
Cyclone Nargis--I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 307, on motion to suspend the rules and pass--H.R.
6022, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer
Protection Act--I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 308, on motion to suspend the rules and pass--H.R.
4008, Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007--I would
have voted ``aye.''
May 14, 2008: Rollcall vote 309, question of consideration on the
role--H. Res. 1189, providing for consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act--
I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 310, on ordering the previous question on the rule--H.
Res. 1189, providing for consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act--I would
have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 311, on agreeing to the resolution--H. Res. 1189,
providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act--I would have voted
``nay.''
Rollcall vote 312, on motion to suspend the rules and agree--H. Res.
1134, Supporting the goals and ideals of Mental Health Month--I would
have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 313, on motion to suspend the rules and agree--H. Res.
1176, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day--I would
have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 314, on motion to recommit conference report with
instructions--H.R. 2410, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act--I
would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 315, on agreeing to the conference report--H.R. 2410,
the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 316, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to, as
amended--H. Res. 1133, Congratulating Winona State University on
winning the 2008 Division II men's basketball championships--I would
have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 317, on ordering the previous question--H. Res. 1190,
Providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res.
70, the Congressional Budget Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 318, on agreeing to the resolution--H. Res. 1190,
Providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res.
70, the Congressional Budget Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 319, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to--H.
Res. 1173, Recognizing AmeriCorps Week--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 320, on motion to instruct the conferees on--H.R. 4040,
Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act--I would have voted
``aye.''
Rollcall vote 321, on motion to instruct the conferees on--S. Con.
Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Resolution--I would have voted
``aye.''
[[Page 10335]]
Rollcall vote 322, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to, as
amended--H. Res. 789, Honoring public child welfare agencies, nonprofit
organizations and private entities providing services for foster
children--I would have voted ``aye.''
May 15, 2008: Rollcall vote 323, on ordering the previous question--
H. Res. 1197, Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to
H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 324, on agreeing to the resolution--H. Res. 1197,
Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642,
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 325, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as
amended--H.R. 5614, Original Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Ultra-High
Relief Palladium Bullion Coin Act--I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 326, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as
amended--H.R. 406, Alice Paul Women's Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal
Act--I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 327, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as
amended--H.R. 5872, Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin
Act--I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 328, on agreeing to the Senate amendment with amendment
No. 1--H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act--I would have voted ``present.''
Rollcall vote 329, on agreeing to the Senate amendment with amendment
No. 2--H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
Rollcall vote 330, on agreeing to the Senate amendment with amendment
No. 3--H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act--I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
A PROCLAMATION HONORING RANKIN & RANKIN INSURANCE AGENCY FOR ITS 80
YEARS OF SERVICE
______
HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, Rankin & Rankin Insurance Agency has served the Zanesville,
Ohio community for 80 years; and
Whereas, Rankin & Rankin Insurance Agency has grown through hard work
and determination since April 9, 1928; and
Whereas, Rankin & Rankin continue to provide professional advice and
direction for all of their customers; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that along with the residents of the 18th Congressional
District, I commend and thank Rankin & Rankin Insurance Agency for its
contributions to its community and country.
____________________
HONORING BENJAMIN B. DUTTON, JR.
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with our colleagues
the news about an outstanding recognition recently given to one of our
House employees, who I am proud to say is a member of my staff. I pay
tribute today to Benjamin B. Dutton, Jr., a man who is called ``Mr.
Winchester.'' I am fortunate to have Ben representing my office in
Winchester, Virginia, one of the best small cities in America.
Along with diligently serving constituents not only for my office
since 1990, when Winchester became part of the 10th Congressional
District, but also for my predecessors George Allen and the late French
Slaughter, Ben has played an active and key role in the Shenandoah
Apple Blossom Festival since it began in 1927.
The Apple Blossom Festival is a special event in Winchester each
spring and I look forward to participating in the Grand Feature Parade
every year. Ben was recognized this year in the Festival program as the
``Keeper of the Flame'' for the Festival. He served as the president of
the festival from 1970-1972 and currently serves on the Board. Even as
Ben approaches his 83rd birthday this June, he is still actively
involved in making sure the Apple Blossom Festival is a success every
year.
Ben is very deserving of all the honors and accolades coming his way
and is truly committed in his service to his community. I am proud that
he is a member of my staff and I am proud to call him my friend. The
Festival program recognition of Ben as ``Keeper of the Flame'' follows:
Ben Dutton: Keeper of the Flame
The Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival is constantly in a
state of flux; constantly reinventing itself. At the same
time, the Festival works very hard to maintain its balance;
to maintain its place in history; and, to never lose contact
with its roots and its purpose. We know all too well how the
Greatest Generation is being taken from us at an alarming
rate these days; but, one of the ``Keepers of Flame'' for the
Festival; one of the guardians of our roots, Mr. Ben Dutton,
is still carrying on an active role in the Festival world
even as he approaches his 83rd birthday.
When asked recently when he reckoned that his involvement
with the Festival started, Ben replied, ``From the
beginning!'' Shortly after the Festival was founded, the
Washington Post ran a pictorial article in 1927 called ``The
Little Blossoms of Winchester''; and, Ben, aged two, was one
of the local children featured in the article. Ben is quick
to credit his Mother's very close friendship with Tom
Baldridge, the original ``Mr. Apple Blossom'', for instilling
in him early in life a great love and devotion for the
Festival. Mrs. B. B. Dutton, Sr., was the Chairman of the
Queen and Court Department those many years ago; and, Tom
Baldridge had started his incredible run as Director General
of the Festival in 1937 when Ben was just a child. Growing up
around Mr. Tom's boundless enthusiasm, seemingly
inexhaustible energy and undying love for the Pink and Green
lit a Festival fire in young Ben that has never been
quenched.
Following graduation from Handley High School, Ben served
three years in the U.S. Army during World War II; graduated
from the University of Virginia in 1950; and, married his
lovely wife, Jean Whipple Dutton, in 1952. They began their
family of three beautiful daughters shortly thereafter; and,
Ben began working in the insurance business in Atlanta,
Louisiana and Southwest Virginia. In 1963, Ben returned to
Winchester for good; joining the firm of J. V. Arthur as a
Vice President and partner; and, immediately returning to the
Apple Blossom World. He served as President of the Festival
in 1970, 1971, and 1972. He served as the Festival's
volunteer Executive Director in 1971; and, professionally in
that capacity from 1995 to 1997.
Ben remembers fondly from the early 70s, the establishment
of the ties between the Festival and the then-new Disney
World in Orlando; and, the beginning of the visits of
Disney's World Ambassador (always a pretty girl); and, of
Mickey Mouse. He also enjoyed helping to establish an adults'
beer, peanuts and dance party at the National Guard Armory
called ``Your Father's Mustache''. Another memory from the
past: the balls that used to be held in old, dry, wooden
packing sheds, filled with wooden apple crates and bulk bins;
and, decorated with cascades of crepe paper and lanterns.
While the memory sounds quaint and charming, it is obvious
that the insurance agent in Ben winces at the through of the
old-fashioned barn-dance-type fire hazards involved.
When asked to describe his favorite Festival guests from
the early 1970s, Ben had no problem zeroing in on two very
special people; people who are not only very special in their
places in the history of the world; but, who are obviously
very special people in Ben Dutton's life. In 1972, Ben sought
out and received the services of the Reverend Billy Graham as
Grand Marshal of the Festival. It is not at all hard to
imagine the electric effect Graham had on the Festival crowds
that year. It is also obvious, listening to Ben tell the
story, that his time spent with Dr. Graham is something that
he will never forget. Ben says that the met him at Dulles
Airport and that Billy told him that ``he had always wanted
to cross the Blue Ridge and descend into the Shenandoah
Valley in the springtime.'' Ben's other favorite was the
Festival appearance in 1971 of Admiral Alan Shepard, who was
in town to crown his daughter, Juliana, as Queen. Shepard had
recently returned from an Apollo Mission to the Moon. Ben is
still fascinated by the fact that the raucous crowd at the
Stag Luncheon was instantly hushed to silence when Admiral
Shepard stepped to the microphone to describe his trip to the
Moon.
When asked how he feels after all these years when he sees
the lead units of the Grand Feature Parade coming up
Washington Street Hill, Ben said that ``He still had; and,
always would have a tender spot in his heart for that
scene.'' He continued, ``What would springtime be like
without it?'' Ben, admittedly, had a rough winter of 2007-
2008. Health problems kept him away from one Festival Board
Meeting after another; and, this was tough for a man who has
remained active enough in the Festival to have played a key
role in the establishment of a new event, the Men's
Commonwealth Luncheon, just two years ago. The February 2008
Board Meeting had already started when, unexpected and
unannounced, in the door walked Ben Dutton. The immediate
burst of
[[Page 10336]]
applause was instantaneous, genuine, affectionate and
relieved. Festival people do know who the Keepers of the
Flame are; and, they are cherished!
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO CHARLES M. HAIR, M.D.
______
HON. ELTON GALLEGLY
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Speaker, last week the Livingston Memorial
Visiting Nurse Association celebrated its 60th anniversary and, in
doing so, paid tribute to Charles M. Hair, M.D., for his enduring
devotion to the organization.
I, too, rise in tribute to Dr. Hair, Chairman of the Board of
Livingston Memorial Visiting Nurse Association.
Dr. Hair was raised in the farming community of Santa Paula,
California. He joined the U.S. Army after earning his M.D., at the USC
School of Medicine, and served two years in an Army field hospital in
post-World War II Salzburg, Austria.
He returned to his home in Ventura County, California, in 1948, and
embarked on a career as a family doctor. He and his wife, Gerry, whom
he met when he was a student at Ventura College and she a student at
Ventura High School, raised five children here.
Dr. Hair retired from family practice in the mid-1980s, but his
dedication to his profession and the ill continues undaunted.
Throughout his tenure with the Visiting Nurse Association, Dr. Hair has
overseen the direction and growth of the agency to meet the complex and
ever-changing home health needs of Ventura County.
In doing so, Dr. Hair brings a rural family doctor's perspective and
philosophy to Livingston Memorial Visiting Nurse Association. The
Association was founded to provide home care services as an alternative
to institutionalizing the frail, elderly, sick and disabled, an idea
dear to the heart of a family physician. In 1965, Medicare certified
the Association as a home health agency. In 1987, it developed a
Medicare-certified Hospice program.
Today, Livingston Memorial Visiting Nurse Association is Ventura
County's only not-for-profit home health agency with a Medicare-
certified home hospice program. Livingston services are provided for
every individual in need, regardless of ability to pay.
Livingston Memorial Visiting Nurse Association's continued ability to
provide professional, licensed, compassionate home care that is high
quality and cost effective is in no small measure due to Dr. Hair's
vision and direction.
Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in tribute to Dr.
Hair and his vast contributions to comforting and treating the ill and
thank him for a lifetime of healing.
____________________
H.R. 5720--THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2008
______
HON. BILL FOSTER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, I am submitting this statement to record
my strong and enthusiastic support for H.R. 5720, the Housing
Assistance Act of 2008.
As everyone knows we are facing a foreclosure crisis the likes of
which have not been witnessed since the Great Depression. According to
RealtyTrac, a site that tracks foreclosure data, there were a total of
a little over 2.2 million foreclosure filings--default notices, auction
sale notices and bank repossessions last year, up an astronomical 75
percent from the previous year. In addition, more than 1 percent of all
U.S. households were in some stage of foreclosure last year.
My home State of Illinois has not been immune to the crisis. Again,
according to the latest statistics from RealtyTrac, there were almost
91,000 foreclosure filings last year, an increase of over 25 percent
from 2006 and an increase of over 94 percent from 2005.
This common-sense legislation has many provisions designed to spur
the sagging real estate market. First and foremost, this bill would
provide first-time home buyers with assistance in making a down payment
on a home by providing these individuals with a refundable tax credit
that is equivalent to an interest-free loan equal to 10 percent of the
purchase price of their home, up to $7,500.
Moreover, the bill helps struggling taxpayers. Specifically, the bill
would provide home owners who claim the standard deduction with an
additional standard deduction for State and local real property taxes.
The maximum amount that may be claimed under this provision is $350,
$700 for joint filers.
I have introduced a similar proposal H.R. 5790, the Universal
Homeowner Tax Cut Act of 2008. This bill would allow taxpayers who do
not itemize a deduction for State and local real property taxes. I
fully support providing these hard-working Americans tax relief and I
hope some version of real property tax relief is enacted this year.
In addition to these core provisions, the bill contains other
provisions regarding mortgage revenue bonds and tax simplification
designed to spur homeownership.
This bill, in conjunction with a slew of bills that the House passed
last week designed to stem the foreclosure crisis and restore the
housing markets, will help us weather these turbulent economic times.
I support this bill and hope Congress will expeditiously send it to
the President for his signature.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION HONORING COMMANDER SERGEANT LAWRENCE SKAGGS FOR HIS
MILITARY SERVICE AND INDUCTION INTO THE OHIO MILITARY HALL OF FAME OF
VALOR
______
HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, Sergeant Lawrence Skaggs served in the United States Army;
and
Whereas, he was inducted into the Ohio Military Hall of Fame of
Valor; and
Whereas, the local Army Reserve Center in Chillicothe, Ohio bears his
name in commemoration of his hard work and dedication; and
Whereas, Sergeant Lawrence Skaggs earned the Silver Star, a Purple
Heart, Good Conduct, World War II Victory, and Asiatic Pacific Campaign
medals for his service; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that along with his friends, family, and the residents of
the 18th Congressional District, I commend and thank Sergeant Lawrence
Skaggs for his contributions to his community and country.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF GOPAL RAJU
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, on April 10, Mr. Gopal
Raju, a pioneer of Indian American Journalism, leader in his community,
and founder of the publication India Abroad, News India-Times, and the
Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA), passed away at
the age of 80.
Mr. Raju spent a lifetime supporting the Indian American community
and promoting a stronger relationship between India and the United
States. In particular, the Washington Leadership Program that was
formed under the IACPA has allowed nearly two hundred Indian Americans
to participate as interns on Capitol Hill--some of whom have even
served in the office of the Second Congressional District of South
Carolina.
Additional achievements include launching the Indian American
Foundation (IAF)--which raised millions of dollars for causes in
India--and the India Abroad News Service that for over 20 years has
been a vital channel for information sharing between the United States
and India. Most recently, Mr. Raju was the editor and publisher of News
India-Times, Gujarat Times, and Desi Talk.
A man of passion and committed to the needs of his community and his
people, Mr. Raju received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor which is
given to immigrants for their contributions to the United States, the
2000 Asia Society's Leadership Award, the 2006 Taraknath Das Foundation
award, and in 2007 he was recognized by India with the Pravasi
Bharatiya Samman award.
[[Page 10337]]
A memorial service for Mr. Gopal Raju was held on May 17th at the
Maharaja Hall in Royal Albert's Palace in Fords, New Jersey. It was
organized by India Abroad and the South Asian Journalists Association.
I was honored to have met this incredible individual. I know his
humility and selfless contribution to the lives of the millions his
programs and publications touched will be missed. My thoughts and
prayers are with Mr. Raju's family and the entire Indian American
community.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. LAMAR SMITH
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Department of Defense, Army RDTE (R-1 Line #133).
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Applied Physical Electronics, LLC.
Address of Requesting Entity: 5208 Electric Avenue, Spicewood, Texas
78669.
Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to produce
technology to support efforts against terrorist activities, to fund two
endowed professors from the University of Texas for antenna design
support and for signal and image processing, to acquire key capital
laboratory equipment, and to hire 12 highly skilled professional
engineers, as well as supporting staff. The UT professors will be
funded to continue in their efforts to help design compact antenna
structures, as well as the development of algorithms necessary for
detecting and identifying explosives and controlling electronics used
with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The necessary equipment and
additional staff will further the development of APELC's technology
into systems deployed for defense against IEDs and Rocket Propelled
Grenades (RPGs), with the ultimate objective being the utilization of
APELC's technology as integral components of future applicable DoD
systems, including MDA, Army, Air Force, DARPA and the Navy.
Description of Matching Funds: APELC is close to securing matching
funds from a U.S. prime contractor in the form of a 3 year teaming
agreement. The amount is expected to be approximately 1:3 match to the
dollars requested. The matching funding will be used to move APELC's
technology into deployable systems for field use. Furthermore, the
principals of APELC continue investing in the company, and in the form
of facility improvement to better facilitate technology development.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 1958
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to extend my congratulations
and best wishes to the Central High School Class of 1958 as they
prepare to celebrate their 50th class reunion on May 30, 2008. Central
High is located in Galveston, Texas, which is in my Congressional
district. Constructed in 1895 to ensure that the segregation laws then
in effect did not deny Galveston's African-American children the
opportunity to obtain an education, Central High is the oldest high
school in Texas built to serve African-Americans.
Laws dictating what schools a child can and cannot attend, based
solely on that child's race, are a shameful aspect of America's
history. We should take every opportunity possible to salute those,
like the students of Central High, who refused to allow the ``Jim
Crow'' laws stop them from obtaining an education.
The class of 1958 holds particular significance, as they were the
first class to complete all 4 years in the new Central High that opened
in 1954. Madam Speaker, I once again extend my congratulations to the
members of the Central High Class of 1958 as they prepare to celebrate
their 50th class reunion.
____________________
H.R. 5613, THE PROTECTING THE MEDICAID SAFETY NET ACT
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for
H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act. This important
bipartisan bill extends a moratorium until April 1, 2009 on seven
Administration-imposed Medicaid regulations that if implemented, would
severely reduce federal Medicaid funding.
Without the moratorium, Medicaid funding to states for vital programs
and services would be cut by $18 billion over the next 5 years. These
cuts include restrictions on Medicaid payments for graduate medical
education, GME, rehabilitation services, and outpatient hospital
services, among other services.
It would be irresponsible to think about cutting funding to academic
medical centers and residency training programs when we currently face
a shortage of physicians. If these cuts were allowed to go into effect,
we would be unable to provide necessary medical services to many people
who depend upon Medicaid.
Constantly cutting funds to the very services which keep our
fragmented, nonsystem of health care afloat is inhumane and
nonsensical.
The tactic of underfunding federal programs in an attempt to
undermine their effectiveness demonstrates the Administration's lack of
commitment to the programs that faithfully and effectively serve the
American people.
Madam Speaker, passage of H.R. 5613 is simply a necessity. We must
halt the underfunding of important Medicaid programs. I wholeheartedly
support the passage of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety
Net Act.
____________________
HONORING DIANE B. GARRO OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Ways
and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery to recognize Diane B. Garro, an
exemplary public servant. Ms. Garro is retiring after 36 years of
distinguished service at the Social Security Administration.
Ms. Garro has devoted her professional life to serving Social
Security's current and future beneficiaries. Like many other dedicated
SSA employees, Ms. Garro began her career on the front lines, directly
serving beneficiaries. Through her talent and hard work, she rose to
become a key senior executive.
Ms. Garro started her career with SSA while she was still a college
student, and later took a full-time job as a claims authorizer for
disability benefits. Her skill and commitment were recognized as she
was promoted to a variety of management positions throughout the
agency, and she eventually was named as Assistant Deputy Commissioner--
the top civil service position--in SSA's Office of Legislation and
Congressional Affairs, OLCA. She has served with distinction for over
12 years in that position or as Acting Deputy Commissioner. She has
helped to establish a high standard for knowledge, cooperation and
professionalism in representing SSA with Members of Congress and their
staff.
Ms. Garro is recognized as an expert on SSA's disability policies,
with a particular expertise in the complex challenge of determining
childhood disability. With her early experience as a disability claims
authorizer as a base, and additional experience gained in
organizational management, she was named Director of SSA's Division of
Medical and Vocational Policy, which is responsible for developing the
regulations and policies used to determine whether an applicant meets
the test of disability in the law. She was chosen to represent SSA on a
White House workgroup on children with disabilities, and she addressed
the National Commission on Childhood Disability on behalf of SSA.
Ms. Garro also led the development of SSA's medical listing for HIV,
creating a streamlined process that allowed individuals with HIV to
qualify for presumptive disability payments based on a doctor's
certification. As a result, payments for individuals suffering from HIV
could begin in a matter of days rather than months. She also played a
pivotal role in developing and implementing the procedures the Agency
continues to use to expedite benefits to terminally ill applicants.
At the Committee on Ways and Means, we are grateful for Ms. Garro's
vast expertise covering Social Security programs and agency
[[Page 10338]]
operations, and her skill in communicating vital information to
Congress. She has led the Congressional affairs team with a high degree
of integrity, knowledge, and compassion. The Subcommittee on Social
Security particularly appreciates her unfailing responsiveness, and her
timely, accurate, and insightful analysis on issues ranging from
disability determination to disclosure of information to the impact of
immigration reform on SSA. The technical assistance she and her staff
have provided over the years has been invaluable in perfecting the laws
Congress has enacted.
Ms. Garro's tenure in OLCA spanned six SSA Commissioners. She led
SSA's preparation of witnesses for many hearings, and the Committee
learned to expect those witnesses to be ready to handle any question we
would ask. Ms. Garro also participated in innumerable Congressional
briefings. Her hallmark was a thoughtful, practical, well-reasoned
approach to any issue, leavened by a sense of humor that ensured
balance and perspective.
Diane Garro's career exemplifies her commitment to providing
effective, compassionate, and knowledgeable service to the Agency and
to the American public. She can retire knowing she has the respect and
admiration of those who have worked with her, and she can be very proud
of her accomplishments.
We wish Ms. Garro all the best in her retirement from the Social
Security Administration. We thank her for her many years of dedicated
Federal service, and we will certainly miss her.
____________________
H.R. 3221--FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008
______
HON. TODD TIAHRT
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, owning a home is an essential component of
the American dream, and an accomplishment that millions of Americans
aspire to and take pride in. In recent months, however, the housing
market has entered a slump. The effort to provide a way for all
Americans to own their own homes brought a sharp increase in the usage
of subprime and exotic mortgages, which proved to be more than the
market could handle. We now find ourselves grappling with decisions on
how best to ``fix'' the problems that have arisen in the housing market
and in our economy.
However, a broad government handout, such as what has been proposed
in recent legislation, is not the answer.
While the housing slump must be addressed, I am concerned by the
precedent of using taxpayer dollars to bail out fraudulent lenders and,
in some instances, irresponsible borrowers. H.R. 5818 and H.R. 3221,
the so-called ``Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008'' and
``Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008,'' propose such a bailout at the
cost of responsible, hardworking American families.
These bills do contain important provisions such as the modernization
of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and reform of Government-
Sponsored Entities (GSEs). These bills, however, also include a $300
billion taxpayer-funded government subsidizing of irresponsible lending
behavior. I fully support the FHA and GSE reform measures that have
passed the House of Representatives, yet I cannot support a massive
bailout to irresponsible lending practices and market speculators. For
these reasons, I voted against H.R. 5818 and H.R. 3221.
While I cannot support legislation that rewards bad behavior at the
expense of taxpayers, I remain strongly committed to supporting
measures that provide the necessary relief to families who have been
victimized without burdening taxpayers for the irresponsibility of
others. Therefore, I am supporting two alternative bills introduced
before the House of Representatives that precisely address the needs of
homeowners in a responsible and fair way.
First, H.R. 5974, The Housing Opportunity for All Americans Act of
2008, addresses the housing slump in a responsible way. Instead of
providing a massive bailout to irresponsible lenders and borrowers,
this legislation creates a market incentive approach to the housing
slump. The market approach includes a one-time tax credit for
homebuyers of 10 percent of the home's purchase price (up to $10,000)
for 1 year after the enactment of the bill. Also, under this
legislation, taxpayers who are non-resident aliens, flip a home within
the 1 year period, or sell a house to a relative simply for the credit,
would not be eligible. Furthermore, mortgages which exceed the maximum
original principal obligation of a mortgage Freddie Mac will purchase
would not qualify.
Second, H.R. 5857, the Homeownership Protection and Housing Market
Stabilization Act of 2008, is also a more responsible approach to
addressing the current problems facing the housing market. The bill
includes provisions to directly protect home buyers and owners, such as
housing counseling, improved disclosure practices, fraud combating and
prevention measures, and encouragement to rework loans instead of
foreclosing. It also aims to help prevent lenders from falling into the
same habits that have recently developed in the industry by providing
liability protection for helping troubled borrowers, requiring escrow
accounts for subprime borrowers, and reforming appraisal practices for
prospective homebuyers. In addition, this legislation contains
provisions similar to those that have passed this House with my
support: FHA modernization and improved regulation of GSEs, including
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
These alternative bills provide the integrity of the appraisal
process and strengthen mortgage fraud prevention efforts that will help
bring stability to the current housing market. These bills together
represent a viable alternative, offering an appropriate response to a
serious problem without burdening taxpayers for the irresponsibility of
others.
I am hopeful that a bipartisan compromise can be achieved in
Conference that can be supported by a majority of the Members of the
House and Senate, as well as the President. An effectual and
responsible solution to the current situation must be reached for the
sake of our economy and our citizens, and I hope to be able to vote on
legislation that provides sensible but effective relief for American
homeowners.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND LIFE OF JOSE ``CHEGUI'' TORRES
______
HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
remarkable life achievements of a beloved Puerto Rican sports icon and
long-time distinguished New Yorker. Jose ``Chegui'' Torres is an
example to us all, both for his accomplishments as an athlete and his
dedication to his community and Nation.
Chegui was born on May 3, 1936 in Ponce, Puerto Rico. By his late
teens, he had shown such prowess in the ring, that he was invited to
join the U.S. Olympic Boxing Team. As an Olympian, he won a silver
medal in the junior middleweight division at the 1956 Melbourne Summer
Games.
Subsequently--still as an amateur boxer--he won the 1958 Inter-City
Golden Gloves Championship. Later that year, Chegui chose to join the
ranks of boxing professionals. He debuted with a first round knockout
of George Hamilton in New York, and followed that impressive
professional victory with 12 wins--10 of them by knockout. On March 30,
1965, the Brooklyn resident became world light-heavyweight boxing
champion before thousands of adoring fans at Madison Square Garden. He
is one of the first three Puerto Ricans to earn a world title, and the
first Hispanic ever to win the world's light heavyweight championship.
The notoriety that came from his 1965 triumph brought him
considerable national attention. It even led to such highlights as an
appearance--and singing performance--on the Ed Sullivan Show. Not one
to rest on his laurels, however, Chegui successfully defended his
championship belt three times. In fact he did not retire from the sport
until 1969, doing so with an impressive 41-3-1 record.
In more recent years, Chegui has distinguished himself as a leader of
New York's Puerto Rican community. He is a familiar face to city
residents, and a tireless advocate of the less fortunate among us. From
1984 to 1988, he also served as New York State Athletic Commissioner.
And, from 1990 to 1995, he was named President of the World Boxing
Organization.
Having traded his boxing gloves for the might of the written word,
Chegui is now also an accomplished author. He has written several
books, among them: Sting Like a Bee, about Muhammad Ali and Fire and
Fear, about Mike Tyson. He is also a highly regarded sports columnist
for ESPNdeportes.com and a commentator for ESPN Deportes and ESPN
International.
Jose ``Chegui'' Torres has lived a remarkable life. He has
accomplished tremendous victories inside the ring, and--on behalf of
Puerto Ricans everywhere--outside of it. He has shown himself to be a
leader, a fierce representative of his Nation, and a tireless supporter
of his community. After four decades of living in New York, ``Chegui''
returned with his wife of more than 46 years, Ramona Ortiz Rodriguez,
to his beloved Puerto Rico. He
[[Page 10339]]
takes with him a lifetime of memories, our best wishes, and the respect
of a people who will forever see him as their champion.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. SALTER JOSIAH COCHRAN JR.
______
HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, it is with great admiration and
respect that I recognize a dear friend and one of this nation's most
distinguished citizens, Dr. Salter Josiah Cochran Jr. Dr. Cochran was
born on February 28, 1922 here in Washington, DC. He attended the
public schools for the District of Columbia and graduated from historic
Dunbar High School. Thereafter, he attended and graduated from Howard
University receiving both a Bachelor's of Science degree and a medical
degree from the School of Medicine. I applaud and commend Dr. Cochran
and his classmates upon recently celebrating their 60th medical school
class reunion.
Dr. Cochran served our country as a Captain in the United States Army
Medical Corps. He served as Chief of the Outpatient Clinic and
attending physician while stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia and
Walter Reed Military Hospital. Upon his discharge he was awarded the
Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars for his service to our
country.
After his military service, Dr. Cochran moved to North Carolina and
embarked upon a very successful career as a community physician. He
practiced medicine in Weldon, North Carolina for 51 years and retired
from the practice in 2001 with thousands of patients who truly
appreciate his service. Dr. Cochran also served as physician for the
632nd Air Force Radar Base in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Both of
these communities are in my Congressional District.
Even though Dr. Cochran committed many hours of providing dedicated
service to his patients, he remained true to his commitment to be
active, productive and dedicated to every facet of the community. Dr.
Cochran served as the President of the Old North State Medical Society;
President of Halifax-Northampton County Medical Society; Member of the
School Board in Weldon, North Carolina; Physician for Caledonia Prison
System in Halifax County; Chief Medical Examiner in Halifax and
Northampton Counties; Weldon High School Sports Physician; Chairman of
the Board of Elections in Halifax County; and a life member of Kappa
Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.
In December of 2001, Dr. & Mrs. Cochran retired to Suffolk, Virginia
and now live in retirement in Smithfield, Virginia.
Madam Speaker, Dr. Cochran is a devoted husband and father. He is
married to the former Doris Hill of Denver, Colorado. The Cochran's are
the proud parents of four children: Leslie G. Bobbin, Anthony P.
Cochran, Christine A. McLarty, and Robin C. Quarles. They also have 7
grandchildren: Amanda M. Bobbitt, Lydia M. Bobbin, Zachary J. Quarles,
Jeremiah K. Quarles, Ryan A. Cochran, Lindsey K. Cochran, and Daniel F.
McLarty.
I urge my Colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Salter Josiah
Cochran, Jr.
____________________
HONORING HAMILTON COLLEGE WOMEN'S LACROSSE TEAM
______
HON. MICHAEL A. ARCURI
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly congratulate the
Hamilton College women's lacrosse team on winning this year's NCAA
Division III Championship.
I commend the Hamilton Continentals on their remarkable 21-1
performance this season and on setting a NCAA program record for the
year. The Continentals achieved a stunning 19-game straight victory
leading into the playoffs, and this year marks the first time that the
team has advanced to the national semi-finals in its playoff history.
This team has proven that a strong will and never looking back will
take you far, as it encountered and beat both the number-one ranked
team and the defending champions en route to their 13-6 victory in the
final.
The Hamilton Continentals are a shining example of what hard work and
commitment can produce, and I am delighted to represent such an
inspirational group of young athletes in Congress. The sacrifices and
contributions of the entire team and their head coach merit true
recognition. The Continentals have brought pride and honor to our
community as well as their loved ones and the students and alumni of
Hamilton College.
Madam Speaker, I deeply congratulate the Hamilton College women's
lacrosse team on this great accomplishment, and I wish them luck and
success in their future endeavors.
____________________
HONORING COUNCILMAN GENE BELMARES
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Councilman Gene
Belmares, who will be presented with the Liberty Bell Award by the
Laredo-Webb County Bar Association on May 9, 2008.
Gene Belmares is the son of a decorated World War II veteran, Ignacio
Belmares, and Elvira Belmares. He grew up in Laredo, Texas, and
attended United High School and Laredo Junior College. Gene utilized
his marketing skills to great effect in his work with some of South
Texas's most prestigious companies such as Thomas Petroleum,
Arguindegui Oil, and WestWind Homes. Gene is now enjoying his work with
the marketing and sales team at the famous La Posada Hotel, one of the
oldest hotels in South Texas that is leading the revitalization of
downtown Laredo.
Councilman Belmares was elected to the Laredo City Council in 2002,
and is seated on the Metropolitan Planning Organization, Water Issues,
Sports Venue, and Legislative Committees. He is currently serving as
Mayor Pro Tempore, and is responsible for the unprecedented fiscal
growth of the City of Laredo for the last six years through his work on
landmark ordinances and legacy projects. Councilman Belmares also has
admirably served the community of Laredo, Texas, through his civic work
with the March of Dimes, Muscular Dystrophy, and the American Cancer
Society. He enjoys coaching the Gateway Girls Softball League, and the
Boys and Girls Club flag football.
Councilman Belmares is a truly deserving recipient of the Liberty
Bell Award, which is given out annually by the Laredo-Webb County Bar
Association to those who have demonstrated exemplary community service,
and contributed to good governance in the community.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to have had this time to recognize the
dedication of Councilman Belmares to the City of Laredo, and I thank
you for this time.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION TO REPLACE THE ASHCROFT FBI GUIDELINES
WITH THE LEVI FBI GUIDELINES
______
HON. ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, May 30th, 2002 Attorney General
John Ashcroft changed the guidelines established by Attorney General
Edward Levi in 1976 to curb abuses by the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI), following revelations of an FBI ``enemies list''
in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
The Levi Guidelines were adopted after the Church Committee found
that the FBI had developed over 500,000 domestic intelligence files on
Americans and domestic groups and had clearly targeted investigations
to disrupt the efforts of dissenters. This famed Committee detailed the
disturbing extent to which the FBI had spied on Americans such as Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., former Navy officer Father Roy Bourgeois, and
Holocaust survivor and grandmother Edith Bell, all of whom were
peaceful protestors and advocates for their beliefs.
While the Levi guidelines ensured there was a justifiable criminal
investigation and supervision of such investigations, the Ashcroft
Guidelines have enabled the FBI to investigate groups and individuals
whether or not there was evidence of criminal activity. The Levi
Guidelines required that limited FBI investigations be instigated by
facts or circumstances that reasonably indicate a federal crime has
been, is being or will be committed. Under the Ashcroft Guidelines, we
have even seen college students endure taxpayer funded FBI
interrogations and investigations for simply placing irreverent posters
up in their college communities. In one case, the FBI resorted to
grilling a North Carolina college student about ``un-American
materials'' in her apartment, such as a poster of George W. Bush
holding
[[Page 10340]]
a noose. It read, ``We hang on your every word.'' While some may argue
this is not in good taste, it is far from a potential act of terrorism.
The Ashcroft Guidelines have allowed the FBI to attend and begin to
track those present in every public meeting, at every demonstration and
visiting all internet chat rooms. Americans need to be able to meet and
debate without fear that their associations and dissent will end up in
an FBI database at every turn. By severing the tie between evidence of
crime and initial FBI surveillance, the Ashcroft Guidelines
fundamentally alter the role of the FBI in our society and ignore the
very basis for adoption of the original Levi Guidelines.
My Resolution is simple. It calls on Congress to reinstate the Levi
guidelines which provide better protections for ordinary Americans from
unwarranted, domestic FBI spying, on this, the 6-year anniversary of
the eradication of such critical guidelines. This will end domestic
spying such as that documented by the Church Committee report, where
there is no evidence of criminal activity, while ensuring that the FBI
can investigate anyone as long as there is a rational basis for doing
so.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution
urging that the Ashcroft Guidelines be replaced with a return to the
Levi Guidelines.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. LAMAR SMITH
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Department of Defense, Army RDT&E (R-1 Line #30).
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Texas Health
Science Center at San Antonio.
Address of Requesting Entity: 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX
78229-3900.
Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to:
Establish the National Center for Trauma Research, which will be the
primary site for trauma research in the US; this will be accomplished
through federal and non-federal funding; expand clinical research that
benefits the nation's civilian and military trauma patient population,
focusing on survival rates, pre-hospital interventions and surgical
techniques; potential studies include wound healing, hemorrhage control
with dressing, traumatic brain injury; establish telecommunications
technology that connects the three trauma centers and Burn Center,
necessary to coordinate disaster/bioterrorism response and also useful
on a daily basis so that medical education opportunities at any
facility are available across our system; develop a regional ICU
Registry to parallel the current Regional Trauma Registry; coupling the
data available in both allows researchers to study the entire patient
episode, from pre-hospital to discharge and outcome; and support the
infrastructure needed to accomplish these goals, given that during the
same period new revenue streams from physician fee-for-service billing
will partially replace the need for federal funding. NTI is directly
leading to better care for combat casualties. Today military surgeons
and nurses are continuing to be trained at NTI facilities prior to
their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 550 critically burned
soldiers have been treated in San Antonio. The NTI is playing a
critical role in our nation's battlefield medical response effort and
helping to improve outcomes for these brave men and women.
____________________
SLAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STAMP ACT
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, and I rise today to speak
about a concurrent resolution that I have just introduced that
recognizes the service and sacrifice of our law enforcement officers
killed in the line of duty.
My legislation would express the sense of Congress that a stamp.
called the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Stamp, should be issued to
honor law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.
On average, a law enforcement officer is killed in America every
other day. Since 1794, when recordkeeping started, more than 17,900
officers have lost their lives in service to their communities. In
2007, 186 officers were killed in the line of duty, an increase of more
than 28 percent from the year prior.
Too many police officers are killed or injured in the line of duty
every day and this legislation is a way to thank those who put their
lives in danger every time they put on their uniforms. I am proud to
sponsor such worthy legislation.
I invite my colleagues to join with me in commending our law
enforcement officers. It is extremely important that we honor these
everyday heroes! Please join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 356.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. TODD TIAHRT
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: H.R. 5658, The
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009,
contains $7,412,000 for MXG Consolidation and Forward Logistic Center,
Phase 2 in the Air Force, Military Construction account. This project
is for McConnell Air Force Base located 57837 Coffeyville St., Kansas,
67221. The funds will help complete phase two of the Maintenance Group
(MXG) Consolidation and Forward Logistics Center that will streamline
many different facilities into one maintenance facility, resulting in
improved military operations and saving taxpayer dollars by reducing
operations and maintenance spending. No matching funds are required for
this military construction project.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. DAVID L. HOBSON
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the February 2008 New
Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman David L. Hobson.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Provision: Division B, Title XXVI, Section 2604.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ohio National Guard.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2825 West Dublin-Granville Road,
Columbus, Ohio 43235-2789.
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $12,793.00 to authorize
acceleration of construction of a facility to relocate the Ohio Air
National Guard's 269th Combat Communications Squadron and 251st Combat
Communications Group to another part of the Springfield, Ohio, Air
National Guard Base. The current 25-year-old facility is obsolete and
places severe restrictions on the ability to perform equipment
maintenance and conduct training operations. It does not comply with
existing codes and has excessive operations and maintenance costs. The
current building can be reused for other functions but cannot be made
functionally adequate for the communications mission.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Representative John T. Doolittle.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Air Force--RDT&E, AEROSPACE PROPULSION.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corp.
Address of Requesting Entity: Highway 50 & Aerojet Rd., Rancho
Cordova, CA 95742.
Description of Request: An increase of $3,000,000 for Air Force RDTE
Line Aerospace Propulsion for Hydrocarbon Boost Technology
Demonstrator. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL, Edwards AFB) has
initiated a Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Demonstrator program to
provide the United States with a liquid hydrocarbon rocket engine to
power the next generation of launch vehicles for assured access of
critical national security payloads. Instead of a hydrocarbon fuel,
most American liquid engines in large thrust
[[Page 10341]]
classes use liquid oxygen and hydrogen propellants. Cryogenic hydrogen
is costly to produce. It is also difficult to work with compared to
hydrocarbon fuels due to its extremely low storage temperature
requirement and launch operations safety concerns. Furthermore, the
propellant properties and very cold temperatures reduce the life of the
materials involved and make low cost, rapid turnaround reusable
applications nearly impossible. Hydrocarbon liquid rocket engines
ultimately derived from the advanced technology developed and
demonstrated in the Hydrocarbon Booster Technology Demonstrator program
will not only provide the highest performing hydrocarbon engines ever
developed in the United States, but also will provide higher
operability, lower costs and greater safety with higher reliability
than any liquid booster engine ever made in the U.S. and perhaps the
world. The funding would be used for Ox Rich Preburner and Turbopump
concept designs.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Operations and Maintenance, Air Force.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Edwards Air Force Base.
Address of Requesting Entity: Edwards AFB, CA 93524.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$700,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for FY
2009 to make several sites managed by Edwards Air Force Base safe.
Several isolated range tracking sites located near Edwards Air Force
Base (EAFB), including Site T-6, A-11, and A-12 as well as the Ely, NV,
Radar Site, have become attractive nuisances provoking unauthorized
civilian entry onto the sites. Foundations and shelters at the site
have been the target of graffiti. Shell & shotgun casings are found
lying on the ground in large numbers. The extent to which hazardous
materials, such as Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) and lead-based
paint may have been used in the construction of these facilities is not
known. EAFB requires the continued use of T-6, A-11, and A-12 sites.
This portion of the project will construct approximately 8,500 LF of
chain link fence, 6-feet high with 3-strand barb wire outriggers, with
lockable gates to prevent unauthorized entries into each of the sites.
Additionally, an EAFB-owned radar site near Ely, Nevada (known as Ely
Radio Annex), is no longer used and this project will demolish 5
buildings totaling approximately 7,500 SF, including their foundation
slabs, an antenna tower, several concrete pads and fixtures, including
transformers, guard rails, vaults, tank supports, power poles, stairs,
fencing, and antenna pads.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advatech Pacific, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 950 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite C,
Palmdale, CA 93550.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$3,000,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for
FY 2009. The funds will be used for the continued operation of the
Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center (AVPC), which provides the Air Force
with a unique, world-class engineering modeling and simulation
environment for analysis and engineering of current and future space
vehicles, missiles, and advanced weapon concepts. The AVPC leverages
and integrates the best engineering, analysis, and cost tools from
government, industry, and academia. The AVPC directly supports analyses
of alternatives, the fundamental first step in the formal DOD weapon
systems acquisition process and plays a key role directly supporting
the following Air Force Research Laboratory programs at Edwards Air
Force Base: Prompt Global Strike, Common Aero Vehicle, Operationally
Responsive Space for strategic and tactical commanders, and
Conventional Ballistic Missile. AVPCs detailed technical engineering
analysis also provides cost versus risk trade-off analysis across
missions, systems, operations, and infrastructures.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Address of Requesting Entity: 1840 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA
90067.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$10,300,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill or
FY2009 for Moving Target Kill/Small Diameter Bomb (MTK/SDB II)
integration on the B-2 to enhance the B-2's ability to dynamically and
precisely engage mobile targets deep in hostile territory. The current
Air Force Integrated Capability Requirements and Risk Assessment (I-
CRRA) identified the need to improve joint, collaborative operations
capabilities to effectively engage a wide range of high-threat targets:
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE)
targets, moving and relocatable targets, underground targets, and air
defense targets. This additional funding will address many of these
critical needs. Approximately $2,000,000 is intended for UAI Design
Architecture; $2,000,000 for MDU-R CDR; $4,300,000M for MDU-R Prototype
#2; and $2,000,000 for Displays System Requirements.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corporation.
Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA 95813-
6000, USA.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$3,000,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for
FY2009 to return the Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Demonstrator program
to its initial programmed funding level. This critical, next-generation
liquid rocket engine development effort run by the Air Force Research
Laboratory at Edwards AFB will not only provide the highest performing
hydrocarbon engines ever developed in the United States, but also will
provide higher operability, lower costs and greater safety with higher
reliability than any liquid booster engine ever made in the U.S. and
perhaps the world. Since the federal government is the primary end-
user, it is logical that federal funding support the initiative. While
a match is not required, during the past eight years, Aerojet has
invested approximately $30 million in internal research and development
funding on this technology and intends continued support in FY09.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Pacific Scientific Energetic
Materials Company.
Address of Requesting Entity: 24908 Avenue Kearney, Valencia, CA
91355, USA.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$2,500,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for
FY2009 to develop a MIL-STD-1901A-compliant Micro Arm Fire Device for
DoD Rocket Systems, which will significantly improve the safety,
reliability and performance of rocket, missile, and pyrotechnic arming
and fuzing systems for the Department of Defense. Approximately
$800,000 is intended for design and engineering; $400,000 for
materials; $700,000 for manufacturing and assembly and $600,000 for
qualification and environmental testing. The Army has determined that
there is a federal interest in micro arm fire devices to increase the
safety of DoD rockets, missiles, munitions and pyrotechnics. This
request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the
Army Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation account. This is the
first year funding will be needed to advance the technology. Pacific
Scientific Energetic Materials Company has provided $500,000 of
internal R&D funds for this technology.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded
Computing.
Address of Requesting Entity: 28965 Avenue Penn, Santa Clarita, CA,
91355 USA.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$4,800,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for
FY2009 to develop a Common Ground Combat System electronic architecture
prototype which will include replacement of legacy military standard
based data-bus components
[[Page 10342]]
with modem commercial standards based network centric capable
components, the consolidation of obsolete electronic subsystems into
common electronic modules and assemblies providing greatly reduced
space, weight, and power consumption and the implementation of a two-
level maintenance approach using newly standardized commercial
electronic module technology. Approximately $100,000 is intended to be
spent on program management, $300,000 is for an electronics
obsolescence study, $350,000 is for an electronics commonality study,
$1,000,000 is for a design concept development, $2,600,000 is for
design concept demonstrators, and $450,000 is for a heavy brigade
combat team Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) application report.
The advantage of this approach to the Department of the Army is an
evolutionary capability migration allowing the Future Force to operate
with the current force. This project can be completed in FY09.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Navy.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corporation.
Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA 95813-
6000.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$2,500,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for
FY2009 to fund the risk reduction necessary following a successful test
flight of the High Speed Anti-Radiation Demonstration (HSAD).
Specifically, approximately $1,000.000 will be spent for Navy program
management, $800,000 for tactical missile component design development
and analysis, $2,450,000 for lightweight ramjet engine component
testing, $750,000 for ramjet engine safety engineering and analysis,
$600,000 for the guidance system conceptual design, and $400,000 for
operational analysis. The basic HSAD program focuses on demonstrating
the feasibility and viability of using variable flow ducted rocket
propulsion technology for the propulsion portion of planned advanced
weapon systems. This request is consistent with the intended and
authorized purpose of the account and the project is under the
direction of the Naval Air Warfare Center.
Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658--The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Military Construction.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Edwards Air Force Base.
Address of Requesting Entity: Edwards AFB, CA 93524.
Description of Request: At my request, a project authorization for
$6,000,000 is included in the National Defense Authorization bill for
FY09 to fund the replacement of the main base runway at Edwards Air
Force Base. The runway, which supports almost every flight operation at
Edwards is over 50 years old and is rapidly degrading as a result of
Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), a reaction between the cement and the
aggregate that creates map cracking, scaling and spalling of the
concrete, Increased sweeper operations and Foreign Object Damage (FOD)
walks are necessary to eliminate concrete chunks several inches across
that are routinely discovered. Emergency FOD repairs have forced runway
closures affecting 10 to 15 flights for each closure. Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) numbers are dropping rapidly, which is indicative
of pavements nearing the end of their useful life. The runway will soon
fail functionally and will no longer be safe for aircraft operations.
In early FY03 the runway was evaluated by a tri-service team of experts
who rated the pavement condition along the centerline as marginal, with
portions predicted to be unsatisfactory within the next year.
Functional failure of the runway is expected in 2008. No other runways
at Edwards AFB can safely support the current and projected test
operations without significant test mission delays. Temporary
relocation of these missions is not feasible. However, many of the
current and planned test missions can be supported by a temporary
runway.
This project was programmed in 2003 for FY06, and was incrementally
funded over 3 years (FY06, FY07 and FY08). After the project was
programmed, the cost of construction materials escalated dramatically,
eliminating all management reserve, and resulted in a reduction in the
planned scope of the project. In FY08 Congress increased the funding
for the project by $8,500,000; however, this was not enough to account
for a completely unforeseeable increase in number and extent of site
conditions. In particular, over 730 drums containing a ``tar-like''
substance had to be disposed of as hazardous waste and over 41,000
cubic yards of both unsuitable and unstable soil had to be stabilized.
A final project phase has been created to complete the remaining work,
and this phase has a programmed cost of $6,000,000. Funding for this
phase in FY09 will avoid contractor demobilization and remobilization,
and will avoid reconstitution of the temporary runway to support this
work. This alone saves the government over $4,000,000 in cost
avoidance.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with the
House of Representatives two high priority projects included at my
request in H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009.
Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08).
Bill Number: H.R. 5685.
Account: Other Procurement--Navy, Line: Aviation Support Equipment--
Aviation Support Equipment Equipment--Aviation Life Support (P-1 Line
97).
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2822 N. Martin Luther King Blvd.,
Lansing, MI 48906.
Description of Request: Provide $8,000,000 to fund procurement of
approximately 8,000 sets of the Multi Climate Protection System (MCPS)
for U.S. Navy Aircrews. Approximately $3.4 million will be spent on
garment production, $4.2 million on materials, and $0.4 million on
quality control/fielding. The total requirement for the U.S. Navy for
MCPS is 25,000 systems. Between FY 2004 and FY 2007, the Navy and
Congress have provided enough funding for fielding of only 25% of the
required systems. In FY 2008, Congress allocated $2 million for the
program. In FY 2007 the House and Senate Armed Services Committees
addressed the need for MCPS in their authorization bills. The House
authorization text reads, ``The committee strongly encourages the
Department of the Navy to include the necessary funds for the MCPS in
its future budget requests to meet MCPS requirements.''
Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08).
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Operations and Maintenance, (BA 01: Operating Forces).
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2822 N. Martin Luther King Blvd.,
Lansing, MI 48906
Description of Request: Provide $4,000,000 to fund procurement of
approximately 35,000 sets of Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS) for
the U.S. Marines. Approximately $2 million will be spent on garment
production, $1.6 million on materials, $0.4 million on quality control/
fielding. In direct response to the U.S. Marine Corps' unique combat
needs, a Polartec Power Dry Silkweight and Polartec Power Dry Grid with
flame resistant properties for use in the CWLS is currently in
development. Roadside bombs kill or wound more troops than any other
weapon in Iraq, having killed more than 1,200 U.S. service members to
date. The heat and flame produced by roadside bombs presents a
significant burn threat, and the USMC has called for the use of flame
resistant textiles to maintain safety in harsh combat conditions.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman C.W. Bill Young.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Military Construction, Army National Guard.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida Army National Guard.
Address of Requesting Entity: 400 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399.
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $20,907,000 for
construction of Phase IV of the Regional Training Institute (RTI),
Project Number 120191, located at Camp Blanding, Starke, Florida 32091.
It is my understanding that the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG)
and Army National Guard readiness will be affected if the school cannot
adequately accomplish its mission to educate and
[[Page 10343]]
train soldiers. This final phase will finish construction of the
remaining 65,000 square feet of billeting, all remaining
infrastructure, supporting facilities, and all necessary work not
completed in the prior phases to support and house students attending
the courses at the training institute.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. JACK KINGSTON
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston (1-GA)
Bill Number: H.R. 5658
Account: MILCON, Navy
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay
Address of Requesting Entity: NSB Kings Bay, Kings Bay, GA, USA
Description of Request: Provide $6.37 million to construct a 5,000
square feet Communication Addition to the Limited Area Reaction Force
Facility in support of the National Weapons Security Program. This high
security facility will serve as a command and control center, exercise
and recreation spaces, and extended housing for United States Marines
and Navy personnel while on duty. This project will provide required
ballistic protection for security forces and vehicles as well as the
monitoring of perimeter sensors.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. VERNON J. EHLERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers
Bill Number: H.R. 5658
Account: Ap,A Aircraft Procurement, Army; 020 Utility Helicopter Mods
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army National Guard Readiness Center
Address of Requesting Entity: 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington,
VA, 22204
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $5 million for
helicopter modernization. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter is an
essential capability of the National Guard. It provides units in every
State with a multi-mission aircraft for search & rescue, utility lift,
disaster relief and medical evacuation. The Army National Guard (ARNG)
is authorized 782 Black Hawk aircraft, but is short of this
authorization by almost 100 aircraft. This shortage requires ARNG units
to loan or transfer Black Hawks in support deployments, training or
State missions, resulting in a higher usage rate of available
airframes. Additionally, more than 500 of the 782 National Guard
aircraft are older UH-60A models, with an average age of approximately
25 years. The Army is procuring over 1,200 UH-60M Black Hawks for
utility, special operations and MEDEVAC missions to replace the aging
UH-60A from operational units by 2016. The Army acquired 33 UH-60M
Black Hawks by the end of FY07, and from FY09 to FY13, the Army plans
to procure an additional 300 UH-60M Black Hawks (70 of those aircraft
are programmed for ARNG units). However, without an accelerated
procurement of the UH-60M, the Army National Guard will be operating
more than 400 UH-60A helicopters beyond 2020. The ARNG and the Active
Army developed a program to support the continued modernization of the
ARNG Black Hawk fleet. Unfortunately, this program is not fully funded.
The ARNG plan is to accelerate the fielding of UH-60M Black Hawks by 10
aircraft per year. Although the Active Army has programmed UH-60A
recapitalization for the ARNG with Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
funds, which includes an airframe life extension, fleet-wide product
improvements and the replacement of components, the UH-60A to L upgrade
is not funded. The UH-60L Black Hawk is more economical to operate and
has 1,000 lbs. of additional lift than the UH-60A. The desired rate of
UH-60A to L upgrades is 38 per year. Funding the UH-60A to L upgrade
will significantly improve the Black Hawk fleet, and assure that ARNG
units are ready, deployable, and available to protect our national
interests both abroad and at home. This ARNG aviation initiative has
been identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) as
FY09 ``Essential 10--Top 25'' unfunded priorities.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. LAMAR SMITH
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Department of Defense, Air Force RDT&E (R-1 Line #8),
0602102F Materials.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Texas at Austin.
Address of Requesting Entity: 1 University Station C2200, Austin, TX
78712.
Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to establish
a research and educational program for enhancing U.S. competitiveness
in Intelligent Manufacturing. Intelligent Manufacturing requires the
integration of physics based models, state-of-the-art analysis and
control, and advanced materials to develop the next generation of
manufacturing processes and systems. The initial thrust will be on
small lot and rapid response intelligent manufacturing that is critical
to national defense, infrastructure, energy, medical products and other
key areas of the U.S. manufacturing base. This project will increase
the manpower, manufacturing technology, and know-how available to
support quick response, high-technology precision manufacturing and
will provide an important competitive advantage for U.S. producers
using Intelligent Manufacturing. Texas and Ohio rank 2nd and 3rd in
terms of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., with the three states
employing 23 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing workforce. Many
key defense industries are located in these states and all three
campuses have strong ties to the defense laboratories, defense
manufacturing, and critical commercial manufacturing entities
(aerospace, electronics, energy, and others).
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. W. TODD AKIN
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, in accordance with House Republican
Conference standards, and Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I submit the following
member requests for the Record regarding H.R. 5658, the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2009.
Project: C-17A Globernaster aircraft
Account: Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Boeing Company
Address of Requesting Entity: 1200 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209
Description of Request: Per Air Force Unfunded Priority List (UPL)
#6, C-17 (+15 aircraft), $3.9B. procures 15 C-17s, keeping only active
strategic airlift production line open. The C-17 is the world's most
effective and flexible strategic/tactical airlifter. The C-17 has
revolutionized the movement of troops and equipment into battle by
allowing their delivery to parts of the world that was previously not
accessible by conventional airlifters. Additional C-I7s are essential
to the warfighter.
Project: Hyperspectral Imaging for Improved Force Protection (HYPER-
IFP)
Account: Army RDT&E, (CERDEC, NVESD, Special Projects)
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Clean Earth Technologies, LLC.
Address of Requesting Entity: 13378 Lakefront Drive, Earth City, MO,
USA
Description of Request: Provide $5,400,000 to complete the design,
assembly, integration, test and evaluation of the Hyperspectral
Integrated Force Protection sensor system (Hyper-IFP). Approximately
40% will be used for engineering development modeling and simulation;
30% will be used for subsystems assembly and testing; 15% will be used
for system integration and ground testing; 15% will be used for a
deployed full system field test and evaluation. The request is
consistent with the Army NVESD Special Projects office mission to
develop advanced sensor systems that provide an operational advantage
or that increase survivability of the warfighter. Taxpayer value is
substantially enhanced by dual/multi use capacity to serve a number of
Homeland Security (DHS) missions in addition to military force
protection.
Project: Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense
Account: Defensewide RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: LaBarge Corporation
Address of Requesting Entity: 9900 Clayton Road, St. Louis, Missouri
63124
[[Page 10344]]
Description of Request: $10M over the President's request of $44.9M
to allow the program to get back on track for its planned 2010 IOC
which will ensure US troops are protected as quickly as possible
against the short range ballistic missile threat. This funding will
allow the development team to accelerate design. development and
testing that was lost due to past funding cuts; and will initiate
concept development and risk reduction efforts to integrate the weapon
into existing Army anti-missile systems. This request is consistent
with the intended and authorized purpose of the Defensewide RDT&E
account.
Project: Heuristic Internet Protocol Packet Inspection Engine
Account: Army, RDT&E.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: TechGuard Security, LLC.
Address of Requesting Entity: 743 Spirit 40 Park Drive, Chesterfield,
MO 63005.
Description of Request: $3.5 million solely for the research,
development and test of Heuristic Internet Protocol Packet Inspection
Engine (HIPPIE). The advanced concept HIPPIE technology can be rapidly
prototyped and deployed in a filtering appliance that sits in front of
an existing firewall or router, and uses unique filtering algorithms to
quickly classify large numbers of packets--i.e., the country of origin
for an IP address--without using slow and CPU intensive rule sets. The
objective of the program is to miniaturize the HIPPIE through the use
of nanotechnology to the point where it can be placed on a chip and
placed directly on a computer for offensive or defensive cyber warfare
use.
Project: Mission Execution Technology Implementation.
Account: Army, RDT&E.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Westar Aerospace & Defense Group,
Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 36 Research Park Court, St. Charles MO
63304, U.S.A.
Description of Request: Provide $10,000,000 for technology
improvements urgently needed by combat units in Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This program will result in
significant increases in mission effectiveness and safety for our war-
fighters. Funding is required to continue development of enterprise-
enabled, integrated Aviation tools and provide this ability to all Army
Aviation systems to include UH-60 series, OH-58D, AH-64D, Fixed Wing
and UAS systems. The complete integrated aviation solution includes
implementing the automated maintenance test flight tool, automated
weight and balance software, and integration with current logistics and
Aviation Mission Planning systems. The Aviation community has
consistently requested an enhanced, fully Automated Maintenance Test
Flight Tool for in-cockpit use, eliminating manual and repetitive
Maintenance Test Pilot tasks and significantly reducing the labor
required to return aircraft to full service. This solution would also
fulfill the Army directive for a paperless system, storing the
maintenance test flight check-sheets into the Common Logistics
Operating Environment, eliminating the paper form. Improved integration
of automated weight and balance tools with the CLOE and the Aviation
System of System infrastructure is critical, eliminating error-prone
manual entries and expanding aircraft flight envelopes by eliminating
manual lookup and interpolation of paper performance charts. The amount
of time in calculating and recalculating loads during OPTEMPO will be
greatly reduced from hours to mere minutes. This effort will include
the application of commercial Aviation best-practices to data and data
processes in support of air worthiness, and the development of
processes to support air worthiness assessments of unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS). Air-worthiness of UAS will improve safety in training
and combat operations as well as permit the routine use of these
critical capabilities within national airspace during natural disasters
and homeland defense operations.
Project: Ultra-Wideband Reactive Waveform Modulator.
Account: Army RDT&E.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: X-COM Systems, LLC.
Address of Requesting Entity: 106 North College Avenue, Warrensburg,
MO 64093.
Description of Request: $1.5M to support the development and testing
of an ultra-wideband reactive waveform modulator (UWB-RWM) for IED
countermeasures at the Intelligence & Information Warfare Directorate
(12WD), Fort Monmouth, NJ. The UWB-RWM will be a COTS solution designed
to support and transition into current Joint Counter Radio Controlled
Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (JCREW) efforts. By
providing a significant performance improvement over currently
available technology, the UWB-RWM's adaptability and scalahility will
facilitate a future-proof capability for transmitting ever-evolving IED
defeat waveforms of increasing complexity.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF BRUCE H.T. DALLAS
______
HON. VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR.
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. GOODE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Bruce
H.T. Dallas of Martinsville, Virginia. Bruce passed away on August 26,
2007, and is survived by his wife Shirley K. Dallas, 6 children, 3
brothers, 11 grandchildren, and 6 great-grandchildren.
Bruce was born on November 4, 1938, in Martinsville. He attended
Albert Harris High School and then began his career of active
participation in a number of civic and community-building ventures. He
served as a member of the Martinsville City Council, Virginia Municipal
League, 5th District of Virginia Democratic Party Committee, and State
Central Democratic Committee. He was president of the 5th District
Black Caucus and former Chairman of the Martinsville Democratic
Committee.
Bruce was a member of the Board of Directors of the Virginia State
Conference of the NAACP and the Martinsville/Henry County Voters
League.
Bruce was an active member of the Mt. Zion African Methodist
Episcopal Church, serving as trustee and steward. In 1997, he was named
``Man of the Year'' by the Virginia Annual Conference of the AME.
The impact of Bruce Dallas' legacy will forever live in the
Martinsville community. He will be remembered as a fearless leader who
was unafraid to challenge the status quo. Bruce was a ``man of the
people'' and held a deep belief that a man's success could and should
be measured by his service to the people. He will long be remembered as
a loving husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather and father-in-
law.
I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to salute Bruce's
legacy of service and commitment to improving the quality of life for
citizens of Martinsville and Southside Virginia.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, consistent with Republican
earmark standards, the following are detailed finance plans for each of
my requested projects in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009, H.R.5658.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Miller
Bill Number: H.R. 5658
Project name: FPS-16 Radar Mobilization upgrade
Account: USAF, RDT&E
Legal Name of Entity Receiving Earmark: BAE Systems
Address of Entity: 557 Mary Esther Cut-Off, Fort Walton Beach,
Florida, 32548
Description: Provide an earmark of $6,000,000 to The Air Armament
Center (AAC) at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida for enhanced range
instrumentation coverage. Due to the ever evolving performance
characteristics of the systems under test it has become increasingly
necessary to extend the instrumentation infrastructure of the test
range by providing flexibility and increased coverage in test support.
Funding for upgrading FPS-16 radars to BAE Systems RIR-980
configuration, will consist of a set of digital radar electronics based
upon an expandable open system VME-based architecture housed in a skid-
mounted shelter that can be transported by a flat-bed trailer. The
electronics shelter will interconnect to the antenna and tracking
pedestal that may also be transported by trailer.
Finance plan: The total package will provide a precision long range
tracking radar that may be relocated to prepared sites for optimum test
coverage and support on a project-to-project basis. 25 percent of the
funding is required for engineering efforts, 40 percent of the cost is
for material and manufacturing, 15 percent for mobility and 20 percent
for locating the system, training and test.
Justification for use of taxpayer dollars: This enhanced, mobile
radar tracking capability will provide AAC the flexibility required to
support testing of current and emerging weapon systems and platforms.
This new capability will attract test programs to the AAC test range
that cannot presently be supported, provide expanded instrumentation
coverage for the range, reduce encroachment concerns, and
[[Page 10345]]
provide more comprehensive coverage and support to all test programs.
This added instrumentation asset will result in more cost effective and
timely test support for the U.S. Air Force and ultimately in fielding
systems for the war fighter in a more timely manner.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Miller
Project name: Moving Target Strike
Account: RDT&E, Air Force
Legal Name of Entity Receiving Earmark: Alpha Data Corporation/
General Atomics
Address of entity: Alpha Data Corp 1326 Lewis Turner Blvd Fort Walton
Beach, FL 32547 General Atomics 3350 General Atomics Court San Diego,
CA 92121
Description: Moving Target Strike works to demonstrate a low cost GPS
guided weapons system with improved accuracy (less than three meters)
and the ability to strike moving targets.
Finance Plan: If the request is fully funded in FY09, the obligation
breakdown ($M) of labor and materials per quarter:
Modification of small weapon--$1.2M
Interface development of weapon to sensor--$1.0M
Simulation and con-ops development--$0.5M
Datalink procurement and integration--$1.0 M
Manned aircraft integration of datalink and sensor--$0.2 M
Manned flight test/demo. (static weapon, no live drop)--$0.4 M
Predator integration engineering--$0.6 M
Program managemenVsystem engineering--$1.1 M
Total--$6.0M
Justification for use of taxpayer dollars: The ability to extend the
capability of GPS guided weapons to moving targets will significantly
enhance the effectiveness of weapons platforms that use GPS guided
systems. The enemy knows that currently if he keeps moving he is safe
from many of our current weapon systems. The ability to strike movers
from a variety of platforms with GPS guided weapons will greatly reduce
the enemy's ability to avoid our weapons.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Miller
Project Name: Joint Gulf Range Complex Upgrade
Account: RDT&E, Defense Wide
Legal name of entity receiving earmark: The Boeing Company
Address of entity: 634 Anchors St, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
Description: The services lack infrastructure to collaboratively
address operational issues associated with the Global War on Terror.
The 46 Test Wing at Eglin AFB, in concert with Air Force Special
Operations Command and United States Special Operations Command use the
range to conduct mission readiness qualification and weapons testing.
This program will develop a prototype live virtual and constructive
(LVC) range that will enable testing of new net centric weapons and
support realistic joint special operations training. This LVC range
will facilitate the fielding of weapon systems that possess a net
centric capability enabling conventional systems to directly
communicate with special operations via data link for the time
sensitive targeting of ``terrorist type'' targets including car bomb
factories and training sites.
Justification for use of taxpayer dollars: The upgrade will result in
improved training and mission readiness.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Miller
Project Name: Gulf Range Mobile Instrumentation Capability (GR-MIC)
Account: Defense Wide OSD/Central Test and Evaluation Investment
Development (CTEIP)
Legal name of entity receiving earmark: Prologic
Address of entity: 9400 Innovation Dr. Manassas, VA 20110
Description: The 46th Range Group (46 RANG) has a need for a Gulf
Range Mobile Instrumentation Capability (GR-MIC) that can provide a
platform for remote test, collection, storage and relay of various data
types. This capability is needed to support test events which require
extreme sized land and water mission operating spaces to accomplish
their goals such as distributed Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) test
events, large footprint weapons testing, Directed Energy (DE) testing
and hypersonic weapons testing.
Justification for use of taxpayer dollars: By developing a GR-MIC we
will be able to integrate the simultaneous employment of many advanced
weapons/platforms into a single test or exercise/training events. This
effort connects test and evaluation ranges that use many communication
and data requirements to interact between geographically separated
ranges, making valuable information available to everyone who requires
it. The result is ranges becoming interconnected and consequently
creating a greater training experience.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Miller
Project name: Eglin Air Force Base Range Operations Control Center
(ROCC) Initiative
Account: RDT&E, AIR FORCE
Legal name of entity receiving earmark: Cubic Applications, Inc.
Address of entity: 6 Eleventh Avenue, Suite H-3, Shalimar, FL 32579
Description: The 46th Test Wing has an Improvement Modernization
initiative, termed ``super ROCC''. It provides for more effective
control which will better optimize range scheduling and increase
flexibility in meeting test and training missions.
Justification for use of taxpayer dollars: Considering the effects of
BRAC, emerging Joint Test and Training missions, and increased
operations tempo, this initiative will address the current Eglin AFB
shortfalls in infrastructure to provide safe, efficient, effective
control of range resources. Eglin AFB initiated a phased approach
(Super ROCC) to address these shortfalls, and this project will
initiate the action by addressing movement and control of people and
equipment and relevant security issues. This Initiative will help the
Air Force increase the operations tempo at the Eglin Range by
addressing the movement and control of people and equipment as well as
relevant security issues. Through this initiative, the Air Force will
greatly improve its ability to track all players on the Eglin Range
thereby significantly increase its efficiency in an increased ops tempo
environment. Driven by BRAC and safety imperatives, this further
provides for more effective control which will better optimize range
scheduling and increase flexibility in meeting test and training
missions. Simply by knowing the locations of all entities on the range,
more flexibility in reassigning missions to ground and air space
previously under utilized will be achieved.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. KAY GRANGER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican
Leadership's policy on earmarks, I offer the following justification
for the projects that I requested that were included in the FY2009
National Defense Authorization bill.
For the project titled ``Security Forces Building, 136th Airlift
Wing, Fort Worth'' in H.R. 5658, the MILCON Air National Guard Account,
the legal name and address of the requesting entity is Texas Air
National Guard, 136th Airlift Wing, NAS JRB Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX.
A new facility is needed at JRB NAS Fort Worth for the Security Forces
Squadron and for Combat Arms Training Simulator/Combat Arms Training
Maintenance. This requirement is a result of the Air Force's increased
need for Security Forces personnel and the resulting increase of
Security Forces personnel at the 136th Airlift Wing. Current space and
facilities are inadequate; they are less than half the authorized size
for the current number of personnel assigned and current training/
deployment requirements. This facility needs to be constructed as soon
as possible because the number of security personnel for the 136th
Airlift Wing is growing quickly. Funds will be used toward the
construction of this facility.
For the project titled ``F-22A Raptor'' in H.R. 5686, the Aircraft
Procurement--Air Force Account, the legal name and address of the
requesting entity is United Technologies, 1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite
600, Washington, D.C. 20005-6523 (Subcontractor to Lockheed Martin--
Fort Worth, Texas). The F-22A Raptor is the only fighter that can
provide air dominance necessary to ensure freedom of action for U.S.
allied ground, air, and naval forces in contingency and combat forces.
The F-22A Raptor provides 5th generation stealth, supercruise,
vectoring thrust agility and integrated weapons capability to provide
air dominance. Growing threats from modern surface to air missiles; new
5th generation fighters in development by potential adversaries; and
loss of significant numbers of the current air superiority fighter (the
F-15 Eagle) demand continued F-22 production beyond the current F-22
multi-year procurement. Funds would be used for advance procurement of
F-22A Raptors.
For the project titled ``C-I7A Globemaster III'' in H.R. 5658,
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force account, the legal name and address of
the requesting entity is The Boeing Company, 3855 N Lakewood Blvd, Long
Beach, CA
[[Page 10346]]
90846 (As prime contractor to Vought Aircraft Industries). The C-17 is
the primary U.S. heavy airlift aircraft that can also operate
intratheater on unimproved airfields. C-17 has flown approximately 80
percent of the strategic airlift missions for military operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as serving as the workhorse for disaster
relief in Asia and the United States' Gulf Coast. The program will
provide improved military capability to fulfill needs as identified by
the Department of Defense. Funds will be used for procurement of C-17s.
For the project titled ``Podded Reconnaissance System, SCATHE VIEW
(C-130H)'' in H.R. 5686, the Aircraft Procurement--Air Force account,
the legal name and address of the requesting entity is ATK Integrated
Systems, 236 Citation Drive, Fort Worth, TX, 76106. SCATHE VIEW
provides the war fighter with significant improvements in identifying
time-critical targets, and in saving lives. The SCATHE VIEW program
currently operates eight C-130H airframes, modified to carry a sensor
suite pallet. All assets--including five sensor pallets--are stationed
with the Air National Guard's 152nd Intelligence Squadron (IS) in Reno,
Nevada. Recent deployments to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) have been
very successful in finding improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and in
locating and destroying high value targets. SCATHE VIEW has also
provided critical situational awareness by providing day and night
imagery during domestic forest fires, and in search and rescue efforts.
The program will provide improved military capability to meet an unmet
need identified by the Department of Defense. Approximately 10 percent
of funds will be used for the Blue Force Tracker, 40 percent for 3rd
Aircrew Position, and 50 percent for Tactical Information Broadcast
Service.
For the project titled ``UH-60A to UH-60L Upgrades'' in H.R. 5686,
the Aircraft Procurement--Army Account, the legal name and address of
the requesting entity is United Technologies, 1401 Eye Street, NW,
Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20005-6523, and Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation, A United Technologies Company, 4800 Overton Plaza, Ft
Worth, TX 76109-4428. The Army has begun procuring new ``M'' series
Black Hawks for utility, special operations, and MEDEVAC missions to
replace the older ``A'' series models. The project also continues
modernizing UH-60A helicopters through a UH-60A re-capitalization
program. The current re-capitalization program includes an airframe
life extension, fleet-wide product improvements and the replacement of
components with the latest UH-60L configuration. While performing this
recapitalization, the addition of the UH-60L transmission, UH-60L 701D
engines and other enhancements complete the upgrade at a cost of an
additional $1.5M per aircraft. Funds will be used for these costs.
For the project titled ``RC-26B Modernization'' in H.R. 5686, the
Aircraft Procurement--Air Force Account, the legal name and address of
the requesting entity is ATK Integrated Systems, 236 Citation Drive,
Fort Worth, TX, 76106. The RC-26B performs critical intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions in support of national
disaster response by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), Air National Guard, and in direct support
of Special Operations Forces in the GWOT. The Air National Guard (ANG)
operates a fleet of eleven RC-26B aircraft that provide support to
individual states for disaster relief and counter-drug missions. As the
demands for the RC-26Bs proven utility increased, non-availability of
the platform due to use in GWOT operations have prevented ANG crews
from performing their domestic assigned missions. Special Operations
Command funded the modification of five RC-26B aircraft--to provide ISR
missions in support of deployed operations. With five RC-26B aircraft
deployed in support of missions outside of the continental United
States, an availability vacuum at the state level has occurred. The
remaining six RC-26B aircraft (from Mississippi, Arizona, Florida,
Texas, West Virginia and New York) are not sufficient to support the
disaster relief and counter-narcotics missions of both the ANG and DHS/
CBP. Funds will be used for concept development, design, integration
and flight verification for one aircraft of the following technologies
that would enhance the current Block 20 RC-26B performance and
effectiveness.
For the project titled ``Enhanced Holographic Imager (EHI)'' in H.R.
5686, the RDT&E--Army account, the legal name and address of the
requesting entity is Zebra Imaging, Inc., 9801 Metric Blvd., Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78758. This is the final phase of a three-year development
program to reduce the size and enhance efficiency of the holographic
imager system currently used to produce 3D imagery for the Army's
Tactical Battlefield Visualization program. The requested FY09 funds
will be administered by the U.S. Army Engineering Research and
Development Center (USAERDC) and will complete the EHI development
program, with the delivery of a fully-tested prototype of the field-
deployable Enhanced Holographic Imager. The Enhanced Holographic Imager
(EHI) system is needed by DOD to reduce the time now required to
provide 3D imagery to Coalition Forces in Iraq for intelligence and
operation planning. Approximately 55 percent of funds will be used to
complete design of a system and lab test prototype, 20 percent for the
development of a prototype post-processor, and 25 percent to construct
and test an in-field beta prototype.
For the project titled ``Center for Geospatial Intelligence &
Investigation (GII)'' in H.R. 5658, RDT&E--Navy account, the legal name
and address of the requesting entity is Texas State University San
Marcos, Center for Geospatial Intelligence & Investigation, 601
University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666. The Center for Geospatial
Intelligence & Investigation is conducting research of interest to the
US military. Recognizing the need for better tools to track down
insurgents responsible for kidnapping, maiming, and killing US Forces,
allies, and civilians in operations in OIF and OEF, the Army sanctioned
the initial stage of this project through the Army Topographic
Engineering Center in FY06. This project is designed to assist in
counter-IED (improvised explosive devices) efforts having a direct
impact on increased safety levels and reduced risk of injury and/or
death for U.S. military forces deployed to OIF and OEF. Funds will be
used for the next phase of the project supported by the US Marines
Systems Command. Employing a cross-disciplinary approach, GII seeks to
help military and military intelligence officials build more powerful
investigative and analytic tools. This project will continue to develop
computer modeling based on insurgent behavioral theories to help
extract knowledge from information and data, assisting military
officials in predicting insurgent activity areas and bases of
operation. Components of the project will focus on suicide attacks,
attacks along main supply routes/roads, and the use of specialized
technology to depict the ``Behavioral Decision-Making Template'' of
insurgents. Approximately 30 percent of funds will be used for
personnel, 10 percent for equipment, and 60 percent for other
incidental costs such as travel.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. STEVE BUYER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, the attached financial plans are provided
in support of projects listed in H.R. 5658.
Detailed Finance Plan for National Test Facility for Aerospace Fuels
and Propulsion
Budget: Equipment & Supplies--$2,130,000; Salary--$850,000; Travel--
$20,000.
Source of Match Funding: Purdue University.
Sustainability: Potential sources of funding along with associated
sustainability possibilities include: Office of Energy and Defense
Center for Coal Technology Research (CCTR)--Test and development
support for Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels; DoD Clean Fuels Initiative--
this facility will have the capabilities for long-term test operations
and data collection; DARPA BAA--this facility will have the
capabilities to conduct development work for Biofuels, a strategic
initiative under DARPA; Rolls Royce--through the Purdue University
Technology Center (UTC); Caterpillar--long term test operations data;
The Boeing Company--support and development of alternative fuels
initiatives underway.
Justification for Use of Tax Dollars: In an executive act, President
Bush has committed U.S. military installations to use green fuels. The
Department of Defense is committed to approval of all aircraft for
flight on synthetic fuel blends by the end of 2008. Furthermore, Boeing
and Virgin intend to fly a green aircraft using bio-fuel. The Civil
Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative developed a roadmap for the
integration of new fuel technologies into the aerospace industry. This
project will maintain a multi-faceted National Testing Facility to
support development and testing of alternative energy sources for
aerospace equipment, assisting the federal government and the private
aerospace sector in meeting their green fuel objectives.
Detailed Finance Plan for National Radio Frequency--R&D and Technology
Transfer Center
The requested funds will be the only source of funding. Funds will be
used as follows:
[[Page 10347]]
Establish the Center and Participant Coordination--900K--Staffing and
training; management and project oversight; identify and technology to
needs; select projects.
Start First Project--2,100K--Trial of process; develop needed
maturity for transition to production; details of project spending:
Salaries--1,400K; material--300K; test equipment and facility use--
400K.
Start Second Project--2,000K--Proof process with lessons learned;
develop needed maturity for transition to production; details of
project spending: Salaries--1,300K; material--300K; test equipment and
facility use 400K.
Total--5,000K.
Percent and Source of Matching Funds: None.
Justification for Use of Federal taxpayer dollars: Our Government
spends billions of dollars each year on science and technology and
research and development. Many groundbreaking technologies never make
it to the intended uses simply because it is difficult and time
consuming to bridge the funding gaps and acquisition administration
requirements. National Radio Frequency (RF) R&D and Technology Transfer
Center is intended to facilitate technology transfer to production, to
promote small business initiatives, and to gain higher returns on
research dollars.
____________________
HONORING ELIZABETH FOSTER
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Elizabeth
Foster, who will be inaugurated as President of the Republic of the Rio
Grande during the Webb County Heritage Foundation's annual Founders'
Day Celebration at Texas A&M International University on May 10, 2008.
Each year, the Heritage Foundation selects an individual who embodies
outstanding commitment to historic preservation, and this year, that
deserving individual is Mrs. Elizabeth Foster.
Elizabeth was born on December 5, 1920, in Mission, Texas, to her
parents, Louis J. Kowalski, and Dorothy Newhall Kowalski. She spent her
early childhood in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, where her father was
involved in the tobacco business. In 1931, Elizabeth's family moved to
Laredo, Texas, when she was 10 years old. Elizabeth attended Heights
Elementary School, L.J. Christen Middle School, and graduated from
Laredo High School in 1937. She portrayed Princess Pocahontas in the
Washington's Birthday Celebrations of 1939 and 1941, and was presented
by the Society of Martha Washington in 1940. She married John E. Foster
on May 1, 1941. She had 8 children: John, Elizabeth, Dorothy, Alice,
Mary, Edward, Sarah, and Stephen, and is a proud grandparent to 10
grandchildren. Mrs. Foster has admirably served the community of
Laredo, Texas, through her civic work with the Daughters of the
American Revolution, Ladies' Luncheon Club, and the Cotillion Club. She
is also an active member of St. Patrick's Catholic Church.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to have had this time to recognize the
dedication of Mrs. Elizabeth Foster to preserving the history of the
City of Laredo, and for her inauguration as President of the Republic
of the Rio Grande.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Representative John T. Doolittle.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Report Language.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Herlong Public Utilities District,
Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Ft. Sage Unified School District,
Susanville Indian Rancheria.
Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 515, Herlong, CA 96113-0515.
Description of Request: Request that the Army promptly review the
Herlong Public Utilities District (HPUD) proposal to privatize the
water utility at Sierra Army Depot (Depot) and to convey the utility
and offset the costs of the project if it is in the government's best
interests. Currently, the Depot provides drinking water to the
community of Herlong, and is not in compliance with State of California
drinking water standards. Conveying the water utility to HPUD would
save approximately $4.5 million of the $12 million currently estimated
to bring the Depot into compliance with California State water
standards. As HPUD is a local governmental entity, the matching
requirement is not applicable.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I wish to have my name
disassociated with the following project. After this request was
submitted to the House Armed Services Committee I instituted a personal
earmark moratorium and do not want any earmarks in my name for Fiscal
Year 2009.
I urge the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees, as well as any conferees, to not put forward this
earmark in my name or at my request in final Conference or Committee
Reports.
Requesting Member: Congressman Michael McCaul.
Bill Number: H.R. 5856.
Account: Army RDTE (R-1 Line #133) PE 0605502A.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Applied Physical Electronics, LP.
Address of Requesting Entity: 5208 Electric Ave., Spicewood, Texas
78669.
Description of Request: The requested funding will be used for
research to produce technology to support efforts against terrorist
activities, to fund two endowed professors from the University of Texas
for antenna design support and for signal and image processing, to
acquire key capital laboratory equipment, and to hire 12 highly skilled
professional engineers, as well as supporting staff. The UT professors
will be funded to continue in their efforts to help design compact
antenna structures, as well as the development of algorithms necessary
for detecting and identifying explosives and controlling electronics
used with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The necessary equipment
and additional staff will further the development of APELC's technology
into systems deployed for defense against IEDs and Rocket Propelled
Grenades (RPGs), with the ultimate objective being the utilization of
APELC's technology as integral components of future applicable DoD
systems, including MDA, Army, Air Force, DARPA and the Navy.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, in accordance with House Republican
Conference standards and Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I submit the following
member requests for the Record. Funding for these requests was
authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Army RDT&E, PE62786A, Line 27, Warfighter Technology.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Printpack Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2800 Overlook Parkway, NE Atlanta GA
30339.
Description of Request: The budget request includes $21.9M in
PE62786A for Applied Research of new warfighter technologies of which
$5.3M is allocated for Joint Service Combat Feeding Technology. The
$2,100,000 added to this account will be used to develop new and
innovative packaging and processing technologies for the Warfighter's
combat rations. These funds will result in the ability to provide
greater variety and more nutritional rations with longer shelf-life and
reduced production costs. The objective of this effort is to develop
advanced thermal processing techniques based on the utilization of non-
foil materials for military ration packaging. The importance of
developing non-foil packaging materials will serve as a precursor to
the next stage of the R&D effort which will investigate new and
enhanced thermal processing techniques; specifically, Enhanced High
Pressure Processing, EHPP, and Microwave Sterilization, MW,
technologies. The EHPP and MW processing technologies have numerous
advantages over conventional thermal processing; however, these
processes cannot be used on current foil packaging because they cause
blistering and flex cracking of the foil packaging material. Therefore,
to achieve the advantages of advanced EHPP and MW processing, it is
essential to use state-of-the-art,
[[Page 10348]]
non-foil packaging materials. The development of advanced, non-foil
packaging materials and utilization of innovative EHPP and MW
processing techniques will result in the provision of rations with the
following beneficial and enhanced qualities: greater variety, better
taste, more nutrition, longer shelf-life, lower overall production
costs, environmentally friendly, less volume and waste. The FY09 effort
will consist of three stages and is budgeted as follows: Stage 1:
Blistering, $0.14M, Stage 2: Flex Crack Resistance, $0.26M, Stage 3:
EHPP & MW Trials, $1.7M.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Defense-wide RDT&E.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Scientific Research Corporation.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2300 Windy Ridge Parkway, Suite 400
South, Atlanta, GA 30339.
Description of request: This program will utilize recently developed
Wavelet Packet Modulation, WPM. The $4,000,000 authorized will be used
to implement design modifications for limited rate initial production,
including form factor packaging changes for ruggedization and for
integration with signal intelligence systems. Additionally, production
readiness for integration with existing communications systems will
occur. Finally, module testing will be subjected to continued
assessment and utility testing on multiple platforms. The enhanced
modules will then undergo a final government Production Readiness
Review, paving the way for subsequent deployment. Covert WPM
Communications Modules as communications links for multiple platforms,
including unmanned aerial systems, provide a critical solution to
special operations warfighters that require the ability to communicate
covertly without detection. Funding is required for hardware and
software engineering, integration, and test, 64 percent; specialized
equipment 21 percent; specialized software 13 percent; and travel to
U.S. Special Operations Command and to military test sites 2 percent.
This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of
the U.S. Special Operations Command Special Operations Tactical Systems
Development program.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Other Procurement, Army (Training Devices, Non-system).
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Meggitt Training Systems.
Address of Requesting Entity: 296 Brogdon Road, Suwanee, Georgia
30024
Description of Request: The $3 million authorized will continue the
multi-year upgrade and modernization of existing firearms simulation
systems in the Army National Guard necessary to meet the validated
system standard. The modernization includes the conversion to digital
systems and acquiring tetherless simulated weapons that allow better
freedom of movement and enhanced realism than the tethered version. The
Army National Guard views modernization as critical to resolving an
immediate mandatory small-arms training need in support of the Guard's
role in the global war on terrorism and homeland security. Of the 266
systems in the Guard inventory, 169 have not been upgraded. These funds
will allow for the upgrade of approximately 45 of those systems.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Defense-wide, RDTE.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Address of Requesting Entity: GTRI Cobb County Research Facility,
7220 Richardson Road Smyrna, GA 30080.
Description of Request: The $6,000,000 authorized for Advanced
Surface-to-Air-Missile (SAM) Hardware Simulator Development will
reinvigorate the simulator development process and provide a simulator
that can be used for electronic warfare, EW, development and testing
while the simulator community revives its ability to develop and field
SAM simulators. The funding will be used for research and charged to
the Department of Defense at pre-negotiated rates.
One of the by-products of the collapse of the Soviet Union is that
Russian SAM systems became available for purchase through FME/FMA
programs. This has been a boon for the EW and test communities, DTE &
OTE, in that they have been able to use actual SAM systems, as opposed
to SAM simulators, to develop and test EW equipment and tactics against
Russian SAM systems. While providing the aforementioned benefit, the
availability of actual Russian SAM systems has had the negative effect
of curtailing development of SAM simulators. At the same time, the
Russians have continued to develop advanced SAM systems. Further, the
Chinese have continued their development of advanced SAM systems, and
other, third-world countries have been purchasing and modifying Russian
SAM systems. Intelligence estimates are that these advanced and
modified SAM systems will not be available for purchase by the U.S. in
the foreseeable future.
The result of the above is that the U.S. EW and test communities are
hampered in their development of EW equipment and tactics against
advanced Russian and Chinese SAM systems, or against modified, third-
world, SAM systems. This is particularly troubling because these
threats are critical requirements drivers for many U.S. acquisition and
upgrade programs including the JSF, AWACS, EF-18G, AARGM, J-UCAS, F-22,
and JASSM. While it is believed that the simulator development
community will recover its ability to field simulators of advanced SAM
systems, such recovery will take a long time. Also, unless action is
taken soon, the recovery will be hampered by the fact that the
corporate knowledge needed to develop threat-representative simulator
designs is being lost through retirement and personnel shifts.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: RDTE N, PE#0603513N, Line 35, Shipboard System Component
Development.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Global Technology Connection, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2839 Paces Ferry Road, #1160, Atlanta,
GA 30339.
Description of Request: The $2,000,000 authorized will be used to
begin development of a Two-Screw Magnetic Drive pump system, 2-SMDPS,
with diagnostic/prognostic capabilities in response to a Navy
requirement. Approximately $1,000,000, 50 percent, is for the
engineering and design of the controls/microprocessor; the development
of test protocols and collaboration on the algorithms/softwear; and
$1,000,000, 50 percent, on engineering addressing the pump design. The
system will provide a diagnosis of pump components and provide a
prognosis of the time-to-failure while identifying the affected
components giving their current state and estimating remaining useful
lifetime. This advanced pump system for naval ships that will not only
increase safety for the ships' crews but also ensures there are no
catastrophic failures during critical missions. In addition, it will
provide savings on inventory and reduce the need for redundant systems,
thereby reducing weight and freeing up space on naval ships.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Army, RDTE.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Address of Requesting Entity: Institute of Bioengineering and
Bioscience, 315 Ferst Drive, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0363.
Description of Request: The $3,000,000 authorized for the Center for
Advanced Bioengineering and Solider Survivability, CABSS, will be used
for critical needs in trauma treatment and post-trauma wound care and
reconstruction. The funding will be used for research and paid out at
pre-negotiated rates in accordance with Department of Defense policy.
Specifically, funds will be used to: establish a seed grant program to
identify novel technologies for treatment of musculoskeletal defects
following trauma, develop oriented nano-fiber meshes for treatment of
neurologic defects following injury to the extremities, develop
biodegradable shape memory polymers for treatment of large bone
defects, develop biodegradable shape memory polymers for craniofacial
reconstruction, and test the effects of sustained delivery of
osteoinductive proteins in tubular nanofiber mesh scaffolds on
functional repair of large segmental bone defects. Past Congressional
funding has been leveraged by CABSS to obtain additional funds from the
Department of Defense.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: O&M, ARMY, Off-Duty and Voluntary Education.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: North Georgia College & State
University.
Address of Requesting Entity: College Circle, Dahlonega, Georgia
30597.
Description of Request: These funds will expedite the creation of an
Arabic Language and Culture Program at one of the nation's six senior
military colleges. With its Corps of Cadets numbering nearly 650 and
with an annual commissioning of 45-50 2nd Lieutenants in the U.S. Army,
North Georgia is centrally situated to make an immediate impact on
training future military leaders for the threats that the Nation
currently faces and will very likely face for the foreseeable future.
These funds will create the infrastructure to provide Arabic language
and culture training beginning with the
[[Page 10349]]
fall 2009 semester. The University will pick up the costs for the
program once the Federal funds have been exhausted. Of the $350,000
authorized, $227,000 will be used for personnel expenses for 3 faculty
members to teach Arabic, $23,000 will be used on equipment and
software, $37,300 will be used for students to study abroad and faculty
development, $30,000 will be used to provide students with a summer
stipend. The remainder of the funds will be used for indirect costs.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Army Line 30, PE# 0603002A.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Smisson-Cartledge Biomedical, LLC.
Address of Requesting Entity: 502 Mulberry Street, Second Floor
Macon, Georgia 31201.
Description of Request: The $2,000,000 will be used for Research and
Development on extracorporeal lung support therapy as an extension the
ThermaCor 1200 technology. As research shows, there is an unmet medical
need for something better than conventional mechanical ventilation for
acute lung injury, including exacerbations of chronic lung disease.
Smisson-Cartledge Biomedical intends to pioneer an integrated system to
provide an extracorporeal alternative for use outside of the surgical
ICU. Their system would be designed for use by people who are not
trained perfusionists or surgeons. The plan is to integrate the
``smart'' pump/circuit driver with an efficient compact gas exchange
device for C02 removal and reoxygenation of the blood that
will be infused at normothermic, body, temperature. The base technology
will be further developed to provide this critical life-saving portable
lung support for soldiers/patients that are inflicted with an acute
lung injury. The authorized funds will complete this effort.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Aircraft Procurement, Army; 020 Utility Helicopter Mods.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army National Guard Readiness
Center.
Address of Requesting Entity: 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington,
VA, 22204.
Description of Request: The $5,000,000 authorized will be used for
UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter upgrades. The UH-60L Upgrades are $1.5
million each and include: UH-60L Improved Durability Gearbox; UH-60L
Flight control upgrades; UH-60L, IVHMS, Integrated Vehicle Health
Maintenance System; UH-60L Overhead rescue hoist provisions; UH-60L
Overhead Rescue Hoist; UH-60L Rescue Hoist Cable Guard; UH-60L Digital
engine control unit; UH-60L Hydro mechanical unit; UH-60L Signal data
converter; UH-60L Cargo hook upgrade to 9000 lbs.
The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter is an essential capability of the
National Guard. It provides units in every state with a multi-mission
aircraft for search and rescue, utility lift, disaster relief and
medical evacuation. The Army National Guard, ARNG, is authorized 782
Black Hawk aircraft, but is short of this authorization by almost 100
aircraft. This shortage requires ARNG units to loan or transfer Black
Hawks in support deployments, training or state missions, resulting in
a higher usage rate of available airframes. Additionally, more than 500
of the 782 National Guard aircraft are older UH-60A models, with an
average age of approximately 25 years. The Army is procuring over 1200
UH-60M Black Hawks for utility, special operations and MEDEVAC missions
to replace the aging UH-60A from operational units by 2016. The Army
acquired 33 UH-60M Black Hawks by the end of FY07, and from FY09 to
FY13, the Army plans to procure an additional 300 UH-60M Black Hawks
(70 of those aircraft are programmed for ARNG units). However, without
an accelerated procurement of the UH-60M, the Army National Guard will
be operating more than 400 UH-60A helicopters beyond 2020. The ARNG and
the Active Army developed a program to support the continued
modernization of the ARNG Black Hawk fleet. Unfortunately, this program
is not fully funded. The ARNG plan is to accelerate the fielding of UH-
60M Black Hawks by 10 aircraft per year. Although the Active Army has
programmed UH-60A recapitalization for the ARNG with Operations and
Maintenance, O&M, funds, which includes an airframe life extension,
fleet-wide product improvements and the replacement of components, the
UH-60A to L upgrade is not funded. The UH-60L Black Hawk is more
economical to operate and has 1000 lbs of additional lift than the UH-
60A. The desired rate of UH-60 A to L upgrades is 38 per year. Funding
the UH-60A to L upgrade will significantly improve the Black Hawk
fleet, and assure that ARNG units are ready, deployable, and available
to protect our national interests both abroad and at home. This ARNG
aviation initiative has been identified by the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, CNGB, as FY09 ``Essential 10--Top 25'' unfunded
priorities.
Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: USAF (2009 Unfunded Requirements
List); Lockheed Martin Corp/Boeing Co/United Technologies Corporation.
Address of Requesting Entity: The Pentagon, Washington, DC; Marietta,
GA/Seattle, WA/East Hartford, CT.
Description of Request: $523,000,000 is authorized to advance procure
F-22 long-lead items in FY2009 that are necessary for F-22 procurement
in FY2010. The funds provide for production of supplier items in FY2009
that are required to produce 20-24 additional, Lot 10, F-22 aircraft in
FY2010, such as specialty metal alloy and titanium structural parts, as
well as engine, AMAD, RADAR, CIP, CNI, and Landing Gear parts. The USAF
submitted this request as the number two priority on its FY2009
Unfunded Requirements List. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense
testified that he would like to extend production of F-22 into 2010, in
order to allow the next administration to determine future production
of the F-22. Yet, to date, the Secretary has provided no defense budget
funding request or supplemental budget funding request to do so.
Without funds for Advance Procurement of another full lot, F-22
production line suppliers will be forced to begin shutdown activities
by November of 2008, making it unlikely that the next administration
would have the necessary time or personnel in place to make such an
important decision.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. RAY LaHOOD
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the Republican adopted
standards on earmarks, I submit the below detailed explanation of the
C-130 Squadron Operations Facility for the 182nd Airlift Wing, Illinois
Air National Guard.
Bill Number: H.R 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of fiscal year 2009.
Provisions/Account: Air Force, MilCon Air National Guard, JLQN069160.
Name and Address of Requesting Entity: 182nd Airlift Wing, Illinois
Air National Guard, 2416 S. Falcon Boulevard, Greater Peoria Regional
Airport, Peoria, IL 61607.
Description of Request: This is a top priority for the Illinois Air
National Guard. This project has already received architecture and
engineering funding from the National Guard Bureau, and will be ready
to utilize FY09 funds. This request would provide a properly sized and
adequately configured facility to accommodate airlift squadron
operations. The current facility is only 86 percent of the authorized
space. It is extremely overcrowded and inadequate to support the
ongoing airlift mission of this C-130 base. Upon completion of this
project, the current Operations building will be reconfigured to
address the critical space shortages of other base operations.
____________________
H. RES. 1086 RECOGNIZING NATIONAL NURSES WEEK ON MAY 6 THROUGH MAY 12
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the resolution recognizing National Nurses Week on May 6th
through May 12th (H. Res. 1086). This resolution pays tribute to the
safe, high quality, and preventative health care that nurses provide.
I am pleased to honor the essential role that nurses play in
providing quality health care across our Nation. Each of us remembers
experiences when a loved one needed health care and a nurse was the
first person by the patient's side providing care and comfort. We all
benefit from the commitment nurses make to their profession despite
extraordinary challenges they face every day.
Nurses are the health professionals on the front lines of caring for
Americans both at home and abroad. Our Nation's soldiers on the front
lines rely on nurses for lifesaving aid as they serve our country
abroad. Back in the States, nurses play an important role as the
primary point of contact between the patient and the world of
healthcare providing critical medical care for the patient and
assistance for their families.
Our Nation's health care system is complex and people with all types
of needs are greatly
[[Page 10350]]
served by caring, qualified, and professional nurses. They are integral
to our Nation's health care delivery system. Nurses are advocates and
health educators for patients, families, and communities. Nurses are
also experienced researchers, and their work encompasses a wide scope
of scientific inquiry including clinical research, health systems and
outcomes research, and nursing education research.
Despite the excellent care that nurses provide, unfortunately, there
is a shortage of nurses in our country which must be addressed.
Minnesota--like much of the United States--is on the verge of a serious
shortage of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses that
affects patients, health care facilities, businesses, and the entire
community. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) projects
that the current 10 percent vacancy rate in registered nurses will grow
to 36 percent by 2020, representing more than one million unfilled
jobs.
In addition, there are less than 20,000 full time faculty to train
nurses in this country, and nearly 2,000 full time faculty members
leave their positions each year. Thus, we need to address the shortage
of nurse faculty to help nursing schools expand student capacity and
increase the nursing workforce. I was also pleased to support the Nurse
Reinvestment Act which established a Nursing Faculty Loan Program and
Nurse Service Scholarship program.
An aging workforce, stagnant graduation trends, and greater
employment demand have left our Nation's hospitals critically
understaffed. I believe we need measures to help address workforce
issues to help retain nurses in the profession and allow nurses to be
the professionals that they are. Providing individuals interested in
nursing with the training and tools they need must be a top priority,
and I will continue to support those efforts.
Nurses provide outstanding health care services in our community, and
I look forward to continuing to support the work of nurses who devote
themselves to making such a difference in our lives. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to recognize National
Nurses Week.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. TOM COLE
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, under Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I
submit for publication in the Congressional Record a list of earmarks
which I have obtained in H.R. 5658, the Fiscal Year 2009 National
Defense Authorization Act.
(1) Project Name: UML UAV/UAS Test Facility.
Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: RDT&E, Defensewide, Line 193.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oklahoma State University--
University Multispectral Laboratories (OSU-UML).
Address of Requesting Entity: 1000 South Pine (Research East), P.O.
Box 1902, Ponca City, OK 74602.
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $8,000,000 to establish
a National Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/System (UAV/S) Test Facility
adjacent to restricted Fort Sill, Oklahoma airspace on behalf of the
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Approximately
$4,400,000 (or 55%) is for material, engineering support, range
equipment and renovations, along with $3,600,000 (or 45%) is for the
creation of new, high-technology jobs consisting of technicians,
engineers and scientists. The USSOCOM Program Manager, Special
Applications For Contingencies (SAFC), requires greater access to test
ranges where less restrictive UAV/S test flights may occur. Established
by the OSU University Multispectral Laboratories (UML), this facility
provides unique opportunity to conduct UAV/S flight testing while
remaining within restricted airspace where UAV flights are exempt from
FAA regulations. A wide variety of UAV/S testing, fully coordinated
with Army authorities, becomes possible for all government entities
This facility also supports the Army Fires Center of Excellence and
fosters a positive economic impact on the surrounding areas.
(2) Project Name: Joint Fires & Effects Training System (JFETS).
Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Army, RDT&E, Line 38.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Institute for Creative
Technologies.
Address of Requesting Entity: 13274 Fiji Way, Marina del Rey, CA
90292, USA.
Description of Request: Provides $6.5 million for the Joint Fires and
Effects Training System (JFETS). JFETS at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, a
collaborative effort between the University of Southern California
Institute for Creative Technologies and the United States Army Field
Artillery School, has grown from a concept demonstration to three fully
functional prototype training installations since its inception in
2003. Short of combat, JFETS creates a realistic, stressful, and
demanding experience for soldiers undergoing training in the
synchronization of fires and effects. To date, more 5,000 soldiers have
been trained in the JFETS Urban Terrain Module, the Open Terrain
Module, and the Close Air Support Module.
Joint Fires Observation skills are perishable. The capability to
refresh these skills frequently, in a time and cost effective manner,
and across the U.S. Army, USAF, and U.S. Navy, will make the U.S.
military a more integrated and effective fighting force. The
enhancement of the Joint Fires Effects Trainer System (JFETS) will
provide this.
Budget and timeline for FY 09 JFETS request.
JFETS:
Salaries & Wages--$2,478,361
Materials & Supplies--$797,348
Travel--$34,902
Subcontracts--$2,879,865
Fees--$309,524
Total Project Cost--$6,500,000
This will be executed in FY 09.
(3) Project Name: Call for Fire Trainer II/Joint Fires and Effects
Trainer System.
Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Other Procurement, Army, Line 169.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ``Techrizon, Inc.''
Address of Requesting Entity: 111 SW ``C'' Avenue; Lawton, OK 73507.
Description of Request: This request is for the continued research,
development, technological improvements, and day to day training
operations of the JFETS portion of the US Army's Can for Fire Trainer
(CFFT) II at Fort Sill, OK. With an earmark of $4,000,000,
approximately, $1,600,000 [40%] is for operations and maintenance of
existing modules; and $2,400,000 [60%] is for the construction of
additional modules to accommodate increased workload and student
throughput in conjunction with BRAC-related expansion of Fort Sill.
While JFETS/CFFT II is an Army approved program of record, funds for
these essential functions are not addressed in the approved
Capabilities Production Document (CPD). The requested funding will
enable procurement of additional JFETS modules which will be placed in
an authorized Simulations Center scheduled for construction in FY10.
(4) Project Name: Infrared Materials Laboratories.
Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Navy, RDT&E, Line 7.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ``Amethyst Research Inc.''
Address of Requesting Entity: 2610 Sam Noble Parkway, Ardmore, OK
73401USA.
Description of Request: I received an earmark of $3,000,000 for
advanced infrared systems development. Specifically, $2,097,900 is for
research, development, testing and evaluation: $737,100 is for research
equipment lease, and $165,000 is for building lease. This project has
the support of key officials within the Department of Defense and
within the U.S. suppliers of key defense-related technologies to the
U.S. Government. This request is consistent with the intended and
authorized purpose of the ONR, RDTE, N account. While not required to
do so, the State of Oklahoma and the host community City of Ardmore
have committed non-federal dollars toward this national priority.
(5) Project Name: Excalibur, Proj 155 MM Extended Range XM982.
Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Army, Ammunition Procurement, Line 017.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Raytheon Company.
Address of Requesting Entity: 1151 East Hermans Road, Tucson, AZ
85706.
Description of Request: Excalibur is a funded program of record and
receives procurement funding from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as
well as through Foreign Military Sales. The Army has a stated
requirement of 30,000 rounds, and the current program, through FY13,
funds only 5720 rounds.
[[Page 10351]]
In March 2005, the Army approved Excalibur as the materiel solution
to respond to an Urgent Needs Statement for precision cannon munitions
in Iraq. The additional procurement funding will support wartime
requirements, stabilize the production profile of the program, and
continue efforts to reduce unit cost. Quantities to be procured are
dependent upon final negotiations with the program office as well as
the total amount of the contract, but will be generally consistent with
All Up Round costs in FY07 and FY08.
(6) Project Name: Realign Air Depot Street at Tinker Gate.
Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Air Force, Military Construction, Oklahoma.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Office of Congressman Tom Cole.
Receiving Entity: Tinker AFB.
Address of Requesting Entity: Tinker AFB, 7751 1st St, Tinker AFB, OK
73145.
Description of Request: This $5,760,000 addition to the Air Force
MilCon Account will accelerate from within the FYDP the realignment of
Air Depot Street at Tinker Gate. This project is fully executable in
the next fiscal year, is within the FYDP, supported by the base
commander, is a base priority, and has a parametric cost estimate
associated with it. The existing roadway alignment poses a safety issue
and does not satisfy the Anti-Force/force protection requirements. It
is not in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices--extreme congestion during morning and afternoon peak traffic
flows presents significant driver safety issues as exits are made from
a major Interstate onto the entrance to Tinker AFB. The project also
provides for a new Pass and Identification building consolidating all
operations at the 24-hour gate.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. LAMAR SMITH
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Department of Defense, Air Force RDT&E (R-1 Line #18).
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas Research Institute.
Address of Requesting Entity: 9063 Bees Cave Road, Austin, Texas
78732.
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 for the Air
Force's ``Improved Inspection Reliability for Optimized Maintenance
Program.'' Regularly scheduled nondestructive inspection (NDI) and
maintenance of Air Force aircraft requires that these key assets are
removed from service for extended periods of time in addition to
routine maintenance issues. This program will develop and validate
model-based approaches to the measurement of inspection reliability,
and data mining methods to assure continued performance over time in
Air Force field and depot inspections. This will result in improved
confidence in the reliability of NDI to assess damage without costly
and time-consuming maintenance will increase availability and reduce
maintenance costs over current practices. This one time program of $2M
will use $1.7M for the development and testing of the systems and the
remaining $300K will be used for required reports. As the Air Force is
scheduled to decrease in manpower over the FYDP it is critical that
those in the Air Force will have the tools and equipment to do complete
their jobs. This project fully supports the 2008 Air Force Strategic
Plan which calls for ``Smart Operations across the total Air Force''
and specifically calls for ``Efficient processes free up resources for
recapitalization and modernization, increase the availability of our
aircraft by reducing the time they are in Depot''--This effort is
termed Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century (AFSO21).
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE FINE WORK OF U.S. COAST GUARD SECTOR BUFFALO AND
NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK (MAY 17-23, 2008)
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, I rise today during National Safe Boating
Week to recognize the fine work of the men and women in the United
States Coast Guard and particularly the many contributions of those in
USCG Sector Buffalo.
Commissioned on July 22, 2005 as a merger of the Group Buffalo,
Marine Safety Office Buffalo and Marine Safety Office Cleveland
commands, Sector Buffalo covers a large area of responsibility
including Lake Erie from Lorain, Ohio to Buffalo, New York, the Niagara
River, Lake Ontario, the Finger Lakes, the Erie Canal, and the St.
Lawrence Seaway to Massena, New York.
Sector Buffalo provides many services to our region including: Search
and rescue, homeland security, law enforcement, aids-to-navigation,
recreational boating safety, marine environmental response, and
Immigrations and Customs.
On Saturday, May 17, 2008, under the direction of Coast Guard
Commander Captain Scott J. Ferguson, Sector Buffalo held their first
annual East Great Lakes Water Safety Expo. According to national
statistics, 700 people drown each year from recreational boating
accidents--10 percent of these victims fail to wear a life jacket.
Through Sector Buffalo's public outreach event, the Coast Guard spread
the message about boating safety and the importance of life jackets to
hundreds of Western New York residents.
The Coast Guard has been a presence in Western New York since 1818,
beginning with the construction of the Buffalo Lighthouse.
Sector Buffalo currently occupies approximately 31 acres on the City
of Buffalo's Outer Harbor. The Coast Guard has indicated that Sector
Buffalo occupies a site that is too large for its needs and drew up a
preliminary plan to upgrade facilities--some of which are over 70 years
old--and consolidate them in a way that would meet its operational
needs, allow for future growth and open up public access to the
historic lighthouse and valuable waterfront land.
For the last 90 years the U.S. Coast Guard has honorably served our
waterfront community. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to
recognize Sector Buffalo's efforts to raise public awareness this week,
National Safe Boating Week, and their many contributions protecting
people along our waterways and serving as a committed community partner
each and every week for the last ten decades.
____________________
THE DAILY 45: FAR ROCKAWAY
______
HON. BOBBY L. RUSH
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, every day, 45 people, on average, are
fatally shot in the United States. Last Saturday, May 17, Brandon
Bethea, a 15-year-old Jamaica girl was fatally shot on a Far Rockaway,
New York street corner. She was shot while standing with a crowd near
the Redfern Housing Projects.
Then, 2 days later and a half-mile away, while police investigated
Brandon's killing, 17-year-old Tyrese Jones was gunned down in front of
a local restaurant.
Two more young people, gone before they could even graduate from high
school. And on both of these days, 44 other people were shot. Americans
of conscience must come together to stop the senseless death of ``The
Daily 45.'' When will Americans say ``enough is enough, stop the
killing!''
____________________
H.R. 5501, THE TOM LANTOS AND HENRY J. HYDE UNITED STATES GLOBAL
LEADERSHIP AGAINST HIV/AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS, AND MALARIA REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2008
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for
H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization
Act of 2008. This important legislation authorizes appropriations for
fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign
countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other
purposes, including program monitoring, operations research, and impact
evaluation research of U.S. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria
programs.
Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began, 20 million men, women, and
children have died from the disease. Forty million around the globe are
HIV-positive, and each and every day, another
[[Page 10352]]
6,000 people become infected with HIV. Tuberculosis and malaria are
devastating diseases in their own right, particularly in developing
countries. However, tuberculosis (particularly drug-resistant strains)
in the immuno-compromised poses a particularly vexing treatment
challenge.
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria are sometimes referred to as the
``diseases of poverty;'' without question, Africans and various peoples
of African descent have been hit the hardest by this global epidemic.
In three of the larger countries in the Caribbean--the Bahamas, Haiti,
and Trinidad and Tobago--more than 2 percent of the adult population is
living with HIV. Higher prevalence rates are found only in sub-Saharan
Africa, making the Caribbean the second-most affected region in the
world.
AIDS is now one of the leading causes of death in some of these
countries, with Haiti being the worst affected. An estimated 16,000
lives are lost each year to AIDS in Haiti, and tens of thousands of
children have been orphaned by the epidemic. As well, Haiti has the
highest per capita tuberculosis burden in the Latin America and
Caribbean region. After HIV/AIDS, TB is the country's greatest
infectious cause of mortality of both youth and adults, resulting in
6,000 deaths annually.
What must not be overlooked in the gobal pandemic of HIV/AIDS is the
need for preventative care. For example, the Act directs the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop a
program to facilitate availability of proven microbicides that prevent
the transmission of HIV. The Act also creates linkages and requires
patient referrals between HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis programs, and
creates a new plan to stop tuberculosis by enhancing testing and
treatment in countries with high tuberculosis rates. New tactics for
attacking drug-resistant tuberculosis are also supported.
Most importantly, the Act provides funding for treatment based on
scientific principles and evidence-based practices. It is our duty to
battle these life-threatening illnesses, and it is inappropriate to
forebear moral judgment or other inherent prejudices upon those
suffering from these terrible diseases. The Act's purpose is to help
provide treatment and support to those who are unable to provide these
services on their own. It implores us to care for one another, for we
are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of our Creator.
Madam Speaker, there is a moral imperative to combat this epidemic,
and the late Congressmen Lantos and Hyde, both dear friends and
colleagues, fought long and hard on this important issue. Please honor
their efforts by supporting H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde
United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.
____________________
STATEMENT ON VETERAN'S LEGISLATION
______
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about
some important legislation that honors the sacrifice and courage of our
women who have served and are currently serving in our armed forces.
The Veteran's legislation we considered today provides an opportunity
for each of us, regardless of political views, religion, ethnicity,
gender, or background to come together, and to recognize and honor our
Nation's heroes.
We gather here today, in the midst of ongoing conflict and warfare,
to celebrate the dedication of our men and women in uniform. Though we
may be divided by our positions on the war in Iraq, we stand together
to support our veterans. Our Nation has a proud legacy of appreciation
and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in
defense of this country. We must be united in seeing that every
soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is welcomed back with all the care
and compassion this grateful Nation can bestow.
All too many of our veterans are left without the help and support
they need to transition from the horrors they bravely face on the front
lines of battle to successful civilian life. According to the Veterans
Affairs Department, as of 2006, on any given night, 196,000 veterans of
all ages were homeless.
The V.A. also reports 400 veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan alone have already become homeless, and this figure only
takes into account those who have sought services from V.A.-sponsored
programs. Experts have predicted that the trauma resulting from the
extreme horrors of these modern wars could lead to a surge in homeless
veterans in the coming years.
I chose to celebrate one of our heroic daughters of Texas, Specialist
Monica L. Brown of the United States Army with House Concurrent
Resolution 320 for her efforts earlier this year.
Spec. Brown was the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second
female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the
Nation's third-highest medal for valor. This solider from Lake Jackson,
Texas is only 19 years old.
On April 25, 2007, Specialist Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy
patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April
25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees.
When Spec. Brown saw her fellow soldiers were injured, she grabbed
her aid bag and started running toward the burning vehicle as
insurgents opened fire. All five wounded soldiers from her platoon
scrambled out. Under this commotion, she assessed her patients and
moved them to a safer location because they were still receiving
incoming fire.
The Pentagon's official policy is to prohibit women from serving in
front-line combat roles in the infantry, armor or artillery, but the
nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no real front lines,
has seen women soldiers take part in close-quarters combat more than
previous conflicts.
According to the army four Army nurses in World War II were the first
women to receive the Silver Star, though three nurses serving in World
War I were awarded the medal posthumously in 2007. Sgt. Leigh Ann
Hester, of Nashville, Tenn., was the first to receive the Silver Star
in 2005 along with two fellow male soldiers for her gallantry during an
insurgent ambush on a convoy in Iraq.
The Army has stated that Spec. Brown's ``bravery, unselfish actions
and medical aid rendered under fire saved the lives of her comrades and
represents the finest traditions of heroism in combat.''
Though I have opposed the war in Iraq from its inception, I remain
absolutely committed to ensuring that we recognize, celebrate, and
honor the service of our sons and daughters returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do, and
I firmly believe that we must commend the men and women of our military
for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq.
I am proud to be a cosponsor on H. Res. 1054--Honoring the service
and achievements of women in the Armed Forces and female veterans
(Representative Davis (CA)--Armed Services) and H.R. 3819--Veterans
Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2007 (Representative Space--Veterans'
Affairs).
We are providing for our Veterans with legislation such as:
H.R. 6081--The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008
(Representative Rangel--Ways and Means).
H. Res. 986--Recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members
of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war
during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the
1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the
Vietnam conflict (Representative Boehner--Armed Services)--Recorded
Vote
H.R. 2790--To establish the position of Director of Physician
Assistant Services within the office of the Under Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for Health as amended (Representative Hare--Veterans' Affairs).
H.R. 3681--Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007 (Representative
Boozman--Veterans' Affairs).
H.R. 3889--To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a
longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs
administered by the Secretary (Representative Boozman--Veterans'
Affairs)--Passed
H.R. 5554--Veterans Substance Use Disorders Prevention and Treatment
Act of 2008 (Representative Michaud--Veterans' Affairs)--Passed
H.R. 5664--To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at
least once every six years the plans and specifications for specially
adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary (Representative
Rodriguez--Veterans' Affairs).
H.R. 5826--Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
2008 (Representative Rodriguez--Veterans' Affairs)--Recorded Vote
H.R. 5856--Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Authorization and Lease Act of 2008 (Representative Michaud--Veterans'
Affairs).
H.R. 6048--To amend the Service members Civil Relief Act to provide
for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are
members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency
operation (Representative Turner--Veterans' Affairs).
[[Page 10353]]
I firmly believe that we should celebrate our veterans after every
conflict, and I remain committed, as a Member of Congress, to both
meeting the needs of veterans of previous wars, and to provide a
fitting welcome home to those who are now serving. Veterans have kept
their promise to serve our Nation; they have willingly risked their
lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we
keep our promises to our veterans.
Currently, there are over 25 million veterans in the United States.
There are more than 1,633,000 veterans living in Texas and more than
32,000 veterans living in my congressional district alone. I hope we
will all take the time to show appreciation to those who have answered
the call to duty. As Winston Churchill famously stated, ``Never in the
field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.''
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting our
troops of yesteryear and our troops of today.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. ROBIN HAYES
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I wish to submit the following earmark for
the Record.
Requesting Member: Congressman Robin Hayes.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Other Procurement Army (OPA), Training Devices--Non-System.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: General Dynamics Information
Technology.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2941 Fairview Park Dr., Suite 100,
Falls Church, VA 22041.
Description of Request: This request is for authorization of $4
million FY `09 OPA funding to allow instrumentation of 12 to 14 of the
remaining buildings at the Range 74 Combined Arms Collective Training
Facility (CACTF) site to Combined Arms MOUT Task Force (CAMTF)
standard. The Army's CAMTF training requirement provides 80 percent
coverage for a generic 20-26 building site. The Ft. Bragg Range 74
CACTF consists of thirty-two (32) training buildings, only six (or 18%)
of which are instrumented. Ft. Bragg's CACTF supports sixteen (16)
brigade-equivalent units with six (6) instrumented buildings.
Considering the XVIII ABC training throughput, the level of
instrumentation currently fielded is not commensurate with the size and
scope found at installations with smaller training requirements. Fort
Campbell's Cassidy Urban Training Complex and Eighth Army's Rodriguez
CACTF in Korea are illustrative of the Army's training strategy and
feature at least 18-20 instrumented training buildings, per facility.
The situation is more pronounced when you examine the troop populations
at each installation. Currently, the Rodriguez site supports one
maneuver brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, while Cassidy hosts
three maneuver brigades from the 101st Airborne Division. There is a
compelling need to instrument another twelve to fourteen (12-14)
buildings at the Ft Bragg CACTF to align it closer to the Army's
standard.
Requesting Member: Congressman Robin Hayes.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: RDT&E, Navy.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Combat Displays, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 100-B Industrial Drive, New Bern, NC
28562.
Description of Request: Provide an authorization of $6,800,000 for
development of environmentally sealed, ruggedized avionics displays for
vertical lift systems and will be done in conjunction with the Center
for Vertical Lift Excellence, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry
Point, NC in support of technology to benefit our military aviators.
This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of
the Navy RDT&E account.
Requesting Member: Congressman Robin Hayes.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Defense-Wide Procurement.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Raytheon Technical Services Company.
Address of Requesting Entity: 6125 E 21st St., Indianapolis, IN
46219-2058.
Description of Request: Provide an authorization of $6,000,000 to
procure 80 RAMS B kits for Special Operations Forces. RAMS is a remote-
controller initiator to control the activation of demolitions. This
request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the
Defense Wide Procurement account. These kits are used extensively by
United States Special Operations Command and our servicemembers in OIF
and OEF.
Requesting Member: Congressman Robin Hayes.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: OPN Budget Activity 01, Line #19, Items Less than $5
million.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: IMO Pump.
Address of Requesting Entity: 1710 Airport Road, Monroe, NC, USA.
Description of Request: Provide an authorization of $4 million for
the procurement and installation of Canned Lube Pumps (CLP) on four
LSD-41/49 Class amphibious ships. This funding will purchase 16 CLP
units to complete the LSD-41 class. Approximately, $400,000 is for
technical support for installation; $2.8M for the CLP units and
installation; $600, 000 for battle spares; $200,000 for proto-type
shipboard test for LHD class. The Navy has indicated that the total
savings over the life of the LSD 41/49 class from installing the CLP is
over $33.1 million and the return investment to the Navy is 394
percent. This funding will complete the procurement and installation of
the Whidbey Island Class.
Requesting Member: Congressman Robin Hayes.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Defense-Wide, RDT & E.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of North Carolina at
Charlotte (UNCC) and Northrup Grumman.
Address of Requesting Entity: UNC-Charlotte Campus in Charlotte, NC
is the location of performance (where the work will be done):
University of North Carolina-Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd.,
Charlotte, NC 28223 and Northrup Grumman, 7323 Aviation Blvd., Mail
Stop 1105, Baltimore, MD 21040.
Description of Request: Provide a $3 million authorization for
Superlattice Nanotechnology research for the Department of Defense to
be performed at UNC-Charlotte. Most of today's compound semiconductor
devices made from silicon (Si) and silicon germanium (SiGe) have high
power capabilities, but are limited by defect density and other factors
affecting yield, cost and performance. One of the most promising new
materials is SiC, which is used to make high power radio frequency
(RF), power switching, and high current switching devices for a
multitude of DOD applications. Superlattice nanotechnology can mitigate
the size, yield and performance limitations of SiC by utilizing atomic
level control of the SiC-on-Si growth process. This will greatly reduce
the cost and improve the performance of many of the desired SiC
devices. Superlattice nanotechnology will form the structure for the
next dimension in RF electronics (Radar, EW, communications), radiation
hard electronics (satellite, special use), and power conditioning
electronics (DEW, electromagnetic gun), enabling performance levels
unachievable with today's technology. Request $5.0 million be added to
the President's FY09 Budget Request to continue development of silicon
carbide (SiC) Superlattice Nanotechnology.
Requesting Member: Congressman Robin Hayes.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Defense-Wide, RDT & E.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: United Protective Technologies.
Address of Requesting Entity: United Protective Technologies (UPT),
4600 H Lebanon Road, Charlotte, NC 28227 and their Locust, North
Carolina facility.
Description of Request: Provide a $2 million authorization for Non-
Hazardous Infrared Anti-Reflective Coatings for Army Aircraft Sensors.
An alternative coating to extend the service life of expensive and
critical infrared range sensor windows is now available. This coating
presents none of the health or environmental impacts found in other
currently used Anti-reflective coatings. Prototype examples and early
stage data of this new capability have been presented to the U.S. Army
and have received very positive feedback. Key features include
unprecedented environment stability, and excellent abrasion and erosion
protection. This coating may also be used on both flat windows and on
dome-shaped configurations. This coating will increase the
survivability of sensor windows and reduce cost of ownership through an
increase in operation life and performance. Army provided Cost/Benefit
analysis shows that the windows of the AH-64 Targeting Sensor Array
(TADS/PNVS) are currently demonstrating a Mean Time between
[[Page 10354]]
Unscheduled Removal of 5031 (PNVS) and 5495 (TADS) flight hours. With
the current Operational Tempo AH-64's can be expected to fly
approximately 100,000 flight hours per year (total fleet). Based on the
damage seen on removed windows, a conservative estimate is that this
coating will cut unscheduled removals by 50%, saving $41 8,000/year for
the Apache Airframe. Other Army airframes could show a savings
amounting to an additional $800,000 annually.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. TIMOTHY WALBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I submit the following to the Record:
Name of Earmark and Amount: Multi Climate Protection System (MCPS)
for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps--$8.0 million.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account Information: Navy, OTHER PROCUREMENT, PE 0, Line 097.
Legal Name and Address of Receiving Entity: Peckham Industries, 2822
North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Lansing, Michigan 48906.
Earmark Description: The Chief of Naval Operations' FY 2000 Aircrew
Systems Operational Advisory Group identified that Naval and Marine
Corps aircrew personnel need an improved protective clothing system.
Until the MCPS was developed and introduced in FY 2004, aircrew
garments in the Navy and Marine Corps predominantly contained textiles
and designs consistent with 1970s' technology. Advancements in
protective fibers and garments were introduced to meet the demands on
aircrews by providing moisture management, heating and cooling
performance in passive and active layers and comfort via modular
components.
Earmark Budget: Test and field approximately 4,689 total systems--
$8,000,000; Garment Production--$3,400,000; Materials--$4,200,000;
Quality Control/Fielding--$400,000; Total--$8,000,000.
The Multi Climate Protection System includes:
1 Goretex parka and 1 trouser
1 Polartec Windpro FR with Nomex Jacket and 1 Vest
1 Polartec Thermal FR with Nomex shirt, 1 overalls and 1 pants
1 Polartec Powerstretch FR with Nomex shirt and 1 pants
1 Polartec Windpro FR with Nomex face mask
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. MARK E. SOUDER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, the following are my explanations of each
earmark in this bill. I have always released my requests. I believe all
requests and detailed explanations should be part of this process.
Transparency is the best protection against abuse.
Bill: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Airforce, Milcon, Air National Guard.
PE No.: N/A.
Line No.: N/A.
Project Name: IN Air National Guard-Fort Wayne Aircraft Shelter/Fuel
Fill Project.
Entity: Indiana Air National Guard, 122 Fighter Wing.
Address: 3005 Ferguson Road, Fort Wayne IAP, IN 46809.
Amount: $5,600,000.
Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: Construct a two
aircraft bay parking shelter addition to the existing two aircraft bay
parking shelter providing a total of four parking spots under shelter
as required for a base A/C Readiness Shelter. The base requires
adequately sized, appropriately configured, and functional aircraft
readiness shelters with supporting taxiway system to support four-ship
F-16 aircraft mission requirements. Due to previous funding restraints
the current shelter facility was constructed with two parking spots
with a plan to add two more at a later date. Readiness shelters are
necessary for mission support, operations safety, and protection of
aircraft and flightline personnel from inclement weather. The project
will also provide a refueler vehicle fill stand on the operational side
of the railroad tracks to support the flying mission.
The 122nd is one of the premier Air National Guard units in the
United States. They have a proven history with deployments during the
Berlin Crisis, Desert Storm, Hurricane Katrina, Guantanamo Bay,
Operation Jump Start and the current global war on terrorism in
Afghanistan and Iraq. The 122nd has received four AF Outstanding Unit
awards for these efforts. In addition to the 60 years of fighter
expertise, the Guard Unit also has a history of safety. Currently, they
have over 16,000 hours of accident free F-16 flying operations. The
construction of this readiness shelter and fill stand will help the
122nd carry out their current mission and train for future endeavors.
Finance Plan: Project consists of the following: Construct reinforced
concrete foundation and painted floor slab with grounding points;
masonry and metal siding walls; steel frame; and standing seam metal
roof; include a high expansion fire suppression system and overhead
infrared heating; provide hangar style doors for drive through
capability; remove existing asphalt and provide new concrete taxiway
entry and exit; provide asphalt transition to the south apron area;
construct stainless steel underground piping, reinforced concrete for
curbed access pavement, and refueler fill stands.
Bill: H.R. 5658, The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Procurement, Defense-wide.
PE No.: 0.
Line No.: 83.
Project Name: Multi-Band Multi-Mission Radio (MBMMR).
Entity: Raytheon Network Centric Systems.
Address: 1010 Production Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46808.
Amount: $9,500,000.
Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: The AN/PSC-5D
MBMMR is the U.S. Special Operations standard man-portable tactical
Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) Satellite communications (SATCOM) terminal.
MBMMR is the primary mission radio for Special Operations Forces (SOF)
units, providing tactical and worldwide connectivity playing a key role
in the GWOT. It enables SOF to communicate on a user-selected frequency
30 to 512 megahertz (MHz) utilizing a single man-pack radio with
embedded communications lifeline to SOF teams operating under hazardous
circumstances such as isolation from possible reinforcement by U.S.
ground forces. MBMMR reduces the need for multiple man-pack radios,
reducing the weight and size of communications equipment which must be
carried out by SOF. U.S. Special Operations Forces have a requirement
for approximately 400 additional MBMMR radios and ancillary equipment
to satisfy requirements of the Global War on Terror.
The Raytheon facility in Fort Wayne is a technology leader
specializing in innovative technology to make U.S. warfighters more
effective and secure. With a history of innovation spanning more than
80 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission
systems integration, and other capabilities in the areas of sensing;
effects; command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as
well as a broad range of mission support services. There are over 1,100
engineers in the Fort Wayne facility working everyday to make our
soldiers the best equipped in the world. This funding will allow them
to create the high-tech radios needed by Special Operations Forces.
Finance Plan: The funding would be used for procurement of 400 radios
for U.S. Special Operations Forces.
Bill: H.R. 5658 The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Army, RDT&E.
PE No.: 0602787A.
Line No.: 28.
Project Name: Orthopedic Implant Design and Manufacturing for
Traumatic Injuries.
Entity: University of Notre Dame.
Address: 416 Main Building, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556.
Amount: $2,000,000.
Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: Approximately 40-
50 percent of Army, Navy, and Marine Corps injuries in Iraq and
Afghanistan require orthopedic procedures. This unusually high
percentage is primarily due to improvements in body and head armor that
inhibit severe trauma to internal organs--injuries which in the past
would have been fatal. Limbs and joints, however, are more exposed. At
the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, over 20,000 orthopedic procedures
are performed annually on active duty and retired military personnel.
The National Naval Medical Center performs approximately 10,000
orthopedic procedures annually. These procedures include total hip,
knee, and shoulder replacement, ligament repairs, foot surgery, spine
surgery, bone fixation, amputations, and prosthetic limb fixation.
[[Page 10355]]
Notre Dame will partner in their research with three leading
orthopedic manufacturers in Warsaw, Indiana (Zimmer, Depuy and Biomet.)
It is imperative the new orthopedic industry is nurtured and allowed to
continually invent and develop new products not only for our soldiers
but also for all Americans. As the global market continues to grow
companies such as these are being pulled offshore to other nations
because of the lure of cheap labor, subsidized materials and energy.
Providing companies with the opportunity to further their research and
development with local universities will help foster the economic
environment that will keep burgeoning industries, like orthopedic
manufacturing, in the U.S.
Finance Plan: Research will address soldier recovery, readiness, and
quality of life in orthopedics and tissue engineering. The project
addresses unmet needs in several areas, including: (1) smart orthopedic
implants--such as hip, knee, and shoulder joints; (2) 3-D woven
material to provide a new surface to localized damaged areas and
cartilage, such as occurs in younger patients; and (3) test and
evaluation of new implant designs.
Bill: H.R. 5658 The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Army, Other Procurement Army.
PE No.: 0.
Line No.: 118.
Project Name: Select Availability Anti Spoofing Module (SAASM)
Precise Positioning System (PPS) GPS Upgrade.
Entity: ITT.
Address: 1919 West Cook Road, Ft. Wayne, IN 46801.
Amount: $2,000,000.
Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: The program will
implement software upgrades to current SAASM based GPS receivers to
expedite the replacement of less secure systems in the near term. This
upgrade will provide a more robust and militarized survey solution and
eliminate parts obsolescence issues facing the legacy GPS-S; as well as
provide the warfighter protection against today's threats from jamming
and spoofing.
Improving our high-tech defense capabilities is paramount for
continuing our superior military strength throughout the world. The ITT
facility in Fort Wayne is one of the leading suppliers of this type of
technology in the United States. Along with the SAASM System, this
facility has the potential to produces 10,000 SINCGAR radios a month
for our warfighters throughout the world. These dollars allow ITT to
update and integrate new technology that makes our warfighters more
capable and also provides them with a higher level of safety.
Finance Plan: The $4,000,000 will support the integration and test of
SAASM-based GPS survey equipment for the US Army. Specifically,
$1,950,000 to update and integrate real-time kinematic algorithms, and
modify and test SAASM software, $550,000 to modify, integrate and test
data collection software and hand-held controller, $250,000 to select
and test suitable, high-precision survey antennas, and $1,250, to
complete prototype systems and system test including data
communications. This is all the funding needed to perform and complete
the work as outlined.
Bill: H.R. 5658 The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2009.
Account: Other Procurement, Navy.
PE No.: N/A.
Line No.: 90.
Project name: Sonobuoys--All Types.
Entity: USSI.
Address: 4578 East Park 30 Drive, Columbia City, IN 46725.
Amount: $112.6M.
I am pleased the House Armed Services Committee has granted my
request to support the President's budget and included $112.6 million
for the procurement of sonobuoys. I am glad the committee has
recognized the serious deficiency in sonobuoy inventories and has
provided an authorization level that begins to correct the shortfall.
The Navy's Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement (NNOR) currently
identifies annual peacetime requirements at approximately 120,000
sonobuoys of all types. Due to other priorities, the Navy has
understated its sonobuoy budget requirement for several years. This has
resulted in a steady decline in inventories, as well as a serious
degradation in combat readiness in the airborne anti-submarine warfare
(ASW) area.
ASW continues to be a core mission area of the United States Navy.
Largely ignored in the aftermath of the Cold War, the ASW mission has
recently re-emerged as a priority for the Navy. This change is caused
by a clear recognition of the dangers inherent in the proliferation of
modem, highly capable submarines to Third World countries operating in
littoral waters. To ensure its ability to effectively participate in
regional conflicts and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) by projecting
power from the sea, the Navy must remain capable of defeating the
submarine threat in the acoustically demanding coastal regions.
The sonobuoy remains the Navy's primary sensor for detection and
localization of submarines by air ASW platforms. Launched from fixed
wing and rotary wing ASW aircraft, sonobuoys provide the only means to
rapidly sanitize large areas of water prior to fleet units arriving in
the area. The improved technology of the modem diesel/electric
submarine, operating near the coastline, makes for a significantly more
difficult target than previously faced by the Navy during the Cold War.
Operational planning indicates significantly higher sonobuoy usage
rates over historical levels when confronted with this threat.
With fleet sonobuoy inventories continuing to decline to historic
lows, ASW aviation units are necessarily limited in the number of
sonobuoys available for training. This has caused a rapid decline in
aircrew preparedness in the ASW mission area. This authorization level
for sonobuoys addresses this issue and provides funding in line with
fleet requirements and usage rates.
____________________
HONORING DAVID A. BECKERMAN AS HE RECEIVES THE 2008 TORCH OF LIBERTY
AWARD
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, today, in my hometown of New Haven,
Connecticut, friends, family and colleagues will gather to pay tribute
to one of our community's most outstanding citizens. I am proud to
stand today and join the Connecticut Anti-Defamation League as they
honor David A. Beckerman with the 2008 Greater New Haven Torch of
Liberty Award.
Our communities would not be the same without the efforts of
individuals whose work benefits our families and neighborhoods. Each
year, the Connecticut Anti-Defamation League presents the prestigious
Torch of Liberty Award to an outstanding leader in the community,
recognizing their unique commitment and dedication. David is a
remarkable reflection of the spirit of community service. With
extraordinary compassion and generosity, David has touched the lives of
many throughout the Greater New Haven community.
A respected civic and business leader, David is the Founder and
Chairman of the Board of Acorn Group, a corporate real estate
management and development company, as well as Founder and Chairman of
Community One, an organization which benefits the seven constituent
agencies of the Jewish Federation of Greater New Haven. To say that
David is a dedicated member of our community would be an
understatement. There are numerous nonprofit and service organizations
which have also benefitted from his experience, wisdom, and
compassion--too many to list. His compassion and civic engagement
serves as an inspiration to all of those fortunate enough to have the
opportunity to work with him.
David is perhaps best known for his passion for basketball. As a
young man of 15 a spark was ignited when he, as a member the Jewish
Community Center's team, won a National JWB Championship. He was a
coach at the JCC for 25 years and then 11 more at Hamden Hall where he
coached his team to victory in 8 New England Championships and 6 league
championships. For the last 4 years he has been coaching at Pine Crest
School in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where he has led the team to two
district championships, two regional championships, and just this year,
the school's first State championship. It is not difficult to see why
he was recently named Florida's Coach of the Year.
David's passion for basketball and working with young people is not
about winning a game. It is about teaching his kids about teamwork,
hard work, camaraderie, and commitment to excellence--valuable lessons
that will serve them well throughout their lives. Through his work with
young people, his efforts with civic organizations, and his own strong
work ethic, David is a reflection of all that the Torch of Liberty
Award stands for and sets a standard to which we should all strive.
Together with his wife, Ruthann, their 5 children, and 10
grandchildren, it is my honor and privilege to stand today to join the
Connecticut Anti-Defamation League and the New Haven community in
paying tribute to David A. Beckerman for his invaluable contributions.
Every community should be so fortunate as to have such a selfless,
dedicated individual who so willingly commits his time and energy to
enriching the community and improving the quality of life for all.
[[Page 10356]]
____________________
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF CUBA
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, May 21, is being
designated as the International Day of Solidarity with the people of
Cuba. On this day we recognize the plight of political prisoners in
Cuba and the threats to human rights that still exist in that nation.
For almost 50 years, Fidel Castro ruled Cuba with an iron-fist. While
he recently stepped down as President, the Communist dictatorship he
headed still remains under his brother Raul, The stranglehold this
regime has upon its people, its economy, and many facets of daily life
is unacceptable. This form of oppression stifles the human spirit and
denies progress and prosperity.
On this date, the international community should speak with one voice
to the people of Cuba that we understand their struggle. As a Nation
built upon the foundation of freedom from tyranny, the United States
must continue to lead the way in bringing democracy and freedom to the
people of Cuba.
____________________
SALUTING THE STATE OF ISRAEL'S 60TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to wish the
State of Israel a chag sameach and happy birthday on its 60th
anniversary of independence.
Over the past 60 years, Israel has exhibited strong and unparalleled
growth in every aspect: governmentally, educationally, culturally,
economically, industrially, and militarily. Today she is as strong as
she has ever been. The state's population is nine times what it was in
1948, the year she declared her independence. It is hard to imagine
that in the earlier part of the 20th century she was nothing but a
swampy British colony.
Governmentally, Israel's democracy is alive and well. It is the only
democracy with free and fair elections in the Middle East. Israel has
some of the world's top universities and its citizenry is highly
educated. According to the state's Census Bureau, in 1948, 208 people
received degrees from the country's two universities; 2 years ago,
53,000 people received degrees from 62 local colleges and universities.
Eight Israelis are Nobel Prize laureates.
Israel's diverse population, which is composed of immigrants from
countries throughout the world, has contributed to its rich culture of
arts, music, and literature. Economically, Israel is considered to have
one of the most advanced economies in Southwest Asia.
Industrially, Israel has managed to become completely self-sufficient
despite its lack of natural resources and small size. This has been
thanks to its groundbreaking technological advances in agriculture and
its hard-working Zionist pioneers. Militarily, despite the country's
size, its army is one of the most superior in the world.
Israel is and will continue to be a key and necessary ally of the
United States. The cross-Atlantic friendship shared by our countries is
critical to both our democracies. I recognize Israel's contributions
toward rooting out terrorism and salute its citizenry for their
resilience and bravery.
As the state turns the page and moves into a seventh decade of
independence, I hope and pray that a future with peace and prosperity
for all of the people in the region is on the horizon.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 100-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE CATHOLIC
CHURCH
______
HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the Divine
Providence Catholic Church as their parish celebrated their 100-year
anniversary on April 27, 2008. The church has served as a foundation
for the Lithuanian community in Southfield, Michigan.
The parish came to be when an energetic priest, Kazimieras Valaitis,
and the Lithuanian Society of St. George, built a wooden church at
Westminster and Cardoni, in what is now considered the deep inner city
of Detroit. Not surprisingly, it was named St. George's Lithuanian
Church. The number of parishioners quickly outgrew the facility, and in
1917 the parish built a new, brick St. George's in the same vicinity.
The parish was the center for numerous organizations and activities of
the Lithuanian community in Detroit and had committees actively
involved in building, fundraising and general governance.
In the 1940's, as the demographics in Detroit were shifting, many of
the parishioners were moving into the suburbs around the city. As a
result, in 1949, the parish built a new church at Schaefer and Grand
River in Detroit. Because the original St. George's church was still
active in the local community, the parishioners chose ``Divine
Providence Lithuanian Church'' as the new name.
In 1967, Divine Providence was informed that the church was to be
demolished to make way for the Jeffries Freeway. A new site was
selected at 9 Mile Road and Beech Daly, and despite the Vatican's
attempt to consolidate the church into a territorial parish, the new
complex was dedicated on September 8, 1973. Thanks to the tireless work
and dedication of parish committees, and later parish councils, Divine
Providence continues to be a cultural center to this vibrant community.
Madam Speaker, Divine Providence has been a beacon of hope for the
Lithuanian community. I congratulate them on their 100-year anniversary
and wish them many more years of prosperity.
____________________
HONORING FATHER MICHAEL ZUFFOLETTO
______
HON. THOMAS M. REYNOLDS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today
to honor a truly respected and dedicated public servant. Father Michael
Zuffoletto who recently decided to retire, has not only served as a
teacher and coach, but he has also served as a chaplain for our brave
men and women of the United States Navy. Father Zuffoletto a native of
Buffalo, New York has been, and will continue to be, an embodiment of
compassion and virtue.
Father Zuffoletto was ordained into the priesthood for the Diocese of
Buffalo in 1972, and received his Masters in Educational Administration
from Canisius College in 1979. He would go on to teach religious
studies at local Catholic schools, and coach various sports teams.
In 1984, Father Zuffoletto reported to Navy Chaplain School. Father
Zuffoletto quickly began serving on tours of duty; in fact, Father
Zuffoletto has served on over ten different tours throughout the world,
including to the coast of Japan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Arabian
Gulf. Father Zuffoletto even served as chaplain for President George
H.W. Bush during the 50th anniversary memorial of the attack on Pearl
Harbor. As a chaplain, Father Zuffoletto oversaw the religious and
spiritual formation of thousands of service men and women as well as
provided Mass and the sacraments all over the world.
Of his many service awards, Father Zuffoletto is the recipient of the
Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy/Marine Corps Commendation Medal,
and the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Recently, Father
Zuffoletto has also served as Chaplain General of the Navy Order of the
United States, chaplain for the Knights of Columbus Council 9486, the
Italian Federation, and the John Paul II Foundation of Monterey.
In his free time, Father Zuffoletto has served as an off-ice official
for the National Hockey League, the American Hockey League, the East
Coast Hockey League and the Atlantic Coast Hockey League.
Father Zuffoletto is remarkable, in every sense of the word, and has
shown all of us the importance of true compassion, loyalty, and faith.
Madam Speaker, in recognition of Father Michael Zuffoletto's
tremendous contributions to our great nation, I ask this Honorable Body
to join me in honoring him, in grateful appreciation for his
extraordinary service to the people of Western New York and to the
people of this country.
[[Page 10357]]
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. GEOFF DAVIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, The following provides
information about earmarks which I have secured through the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 as reported out of the
House Armed Services Committee and which will be considered by the
House of Representatives on May 21-22, 2008.
Requesting Member: Congressman Geoff Davis.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Other Procurement, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kentucky Army National Guard.
Address of Requesting Entity: Boone National Guard Center, 100
Minuteman Parkway, Frankfort, KY 40601.
Description of Request: Authorize $1,500,000 for the Virtual Convoy
Operations Trainer (VCOT). During FY 09 the Army National Guard will
begin fielding the VCOT, which is an upgraded version of the previous
HMMWV and Tactical Truck Convoy Trainer. VCOT fielding is the Army
National Guard's number one priority for convoy training procurement.
The VCOT has been enhanced to allow convoy soldiers to leave their
vehicles and conduct independent dismounted operations that will
greatly assist training in the identification and disposition of IEDs
on the battlefield. Also, the VCOT allows training on several types of
vehicles and with various types of weapons. Without this program, our
soldiers will continue to have fewer trainers than needed to train
counter-IED drills, immediate action drills and convoy operations.
This authorization will allow the KYANG to purchase a VCOT.
During current operations in Iraq, more soldiers have been killed or
wounded during convoy operations than at any other time. The VCOT
provides the best convoy training available, and it includes training
in dismounted operations and combat actions on virtual terrain that
includes Baghdad, Tikrit, Samarra, Kabul, and Kosovo.
Requesting Member: Congressman Geoff Davis.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Other Procurement, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: DRS Technologies, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 7375 Industrial Road, Florence, KY
41042-2911.
Description of Request: Authorize $2,200,000 for procurement of
Multi-Temperature Refrigerated Container Systems (MTRCS). MTRCS is the
follow-on generation of refrigeration systems. It provides the
capability to transport and store both refrigerated and frozen products
in a single container. It consists of an insulated 8' x 8' x 20'
International Organization for Standardization shipping container with
an engine-driven refrigeration unit that will allow operation on the
move. The two compartments are separated by a moveable partition
varying proportions of refrigerated versus frozen products resulting in
maximum loading of the container.
MTRCS is used principally by subsistence units. It will also be used
by medical units for transport and storage of refrigerated medical
supplies, including blood products.
The benefit to DOD is more efficient space utilization and reduced
transportation requirements. Fewer vehicles will be required to
transport food on the battlefield, reducing the number of soldiers
exposed to danger from IED's, etc.
The Army Acquisition Objective for MTRCS is 4432 systems, but only
1050 are funded in the FY08-13 Future Years Defense Plan. This earmark
would authorize procurement of an additional twenty systems.
Requesting Member: Congressman Geoff Davis.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ashland Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 50 E. River Center Blvd, Covington, KY
41012-0391.
Description of Request: Authorize $300,000 to develop advanced,
environmentally-friendly, nano-based rust-corrosion-UV protective spray
coatings based upon the Lotus Effect. Such coatings could prevent
moisture and associated oxygen from getting to a surface and causing
rust or corrosion. These surface-protective coatings would be comprised
of materials that are environmentally-benign and durable.
The U.S. military owns vast amounts of equipment and vehicles that
see considerable amounts of storage time. This equipment must be either
stored indoors or chemically-treated for protection in outdoor storage.
Even treatment of equipment for indoor storage adds a significant level
of added protection for long-term storage that is non-climate-
controlled. Typically, the chemicals used to protect equipment in
outdoor storage are not highly-durable thus requiring maintenance and
are also typically environmentally noxious or even highly toxic.
Approximately, $200,000 is for development of the Nano-particle
Protectant Systems and $100,000 is for development of the Dispersion
and Delivery systems. A nano-particle protectant ``system'' is a
combination of chemicals that work together to provide the desired
protective coating. A dispersion and delivery system is the liquid
dispersing system (mixture of liquids) needed to disperse that
combination of chemicals. A key element is the equipment to spray the
coating on the equipment surface.
Requestinig Member: Congressman Geoff Davis.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ashland Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 50 E. River Center Blvd, Covington, KY
41012-0391.
Description of Request: Authorize $2,200,000 to continue development
of advanced coolant and lubricant systems utilizing nano-particle
systems to enhance the capabilities of military ground vehicles and
simplify supply logistics. FY09 will be the third year of this project.
The focus will be on transition to commercial production and final
testing of stable nanofluids with improved cooling and lubrication
properties while meeting all environmental requirements and making
these processes commercially scalable.
Approximately, $400,000 will be used to transition production from
development to commercial scale; $1,000,000 will be used for engine and
vehicle dynamometer testing; and $800,000 is for field demonstrations.
A dynamometer is a device that absorbs the power of an engine in the
absence of a vehicle to move. The test engine to be used is the new
production engine for the HMMVW that has been the engine of choice for
that vehicle for the past several years. A test cell is a physical
container or room that is properly outfitted for housing an engine-
dynamometer combination for controlled and safe operations. Field
testing of the nanofluids will occur through use of the HMMWV vehicle
with the Optimizer 6500 Turbo-Diesel engine under extreme arctic and
desert conditions.
Military vehicles are designed to meet exceedingly strict and arduous
cooling, lubrication and overall performance requirements. One of the
goals of the Tank Automotive Command is to increase the performance and
durability of engines, power trains and their component parts to
support Army transformation in the areas of system mobility,
durability, reliability and survivability and may ultimately serve to
reduce the logistics cost burden for the Objective Force.
Requesting Member: Congressman Geoff Davis.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: STARCON.
Address of Requesting Entity: 11631 U.S. Route 23; Catlettsburg, KY
41129.
Description of Request: Authorize $1,000,000 to develop the Cyber
Forensics and Tracking Capability (CFTC) tool to support the Department
of Defense cyber security operations for protecting digital forensic
data for computer and network systems to counter emerging adversary
threats. The primary objective of CFTC is preventing emerging cyber
adversary techniques, called counter-forensics, whereby the criminal
disguises and removes any trace of his illicit and potentially
destructive network and computer activities. The CFTC will be
demonstrated and tested through field exercises, technology
demonstrations and other initiatives. CFTC is envisioned as an
important part of the arsenal of cyber security solutions to thwart,
track and prosecute adversaries.
CFTC operates in a network-centric environment using existing
conventional computing platforms. CFTC is another cyber asset to
protect critical systems and networks against increasingly
sophisticated adversaries.
Requesting Member: Congressman Geoff Davis.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Operations & Maintenance, Air Force.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: TiER1 Performance Solutions, LLC.
Address of Requesting Entity: 6 East 5th Street, Suite 400,
Covington, KY 41011.
Description of Request: Authorize $3,000,000 for the Engineering
Training and
[[Page 10358]]
Knowledge Preservation System (ETKPS). The Air Force is facing
significant turnover in its senior technical personnel. The Air Force
Materiel Command (AFMC) could lose as many as sixty percent of its top
engineers over the next three to five years.
Preserving the knowledge base is essential to AFMC and will be a
massive undertaking requiring processes and tools to capture
operational, technical, and critical thinking knowledge. Integrating
the ability to capture, store, align, and transfer knowledge to the
next generation workforce through a single, secure Web-based knowledge
and training portal is necessary. Functionality of this solution must
include the ability to track an individual's skills across competencies
throughout his/her career; evaluate all existing training and compare
the cost-benefits of competing training approaches; allow experienced
personnel to easily create new training and knowledge content in
accordance with pre-defined standards; plug into existing defined
competencies and skill requirements and capture knowledge from subject-
matter-experts to address these; link novices to experts in real-time
through a virtual Web Center; categorize, organize and search all
knowledge and information across the enterprise; deliver assessments to
determine skill proficiencies; deliver information in a variety of
ways--through distance learning, on-line reference systems, technical
manuals, job aids, mobile devices and other tools. FY 09 will be year
four of this ongoing project.
Approximately, $50,000 will be used for requirements analysis;
$125,000 will be used for functional design; $225,000 will be used for
enhanced feature development; and $250,000 is for USAF system
integration; $450,000 is for user acceptance testing; and $1,900,000 is
for USAF selected site development. Requirements analysis is an ongoing
rigorous process to ensure the product meets the very specific needs of
the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC). Functional design results in a
document used to inform and gain agreement that what is being developed
will satisfy the AFMC user requirements. Enhanced feature development
results in a prototype developed per the functional design which is
presented to AFMC for testing and feedback. USAF system integration
establishes proper interfaces between the ETKPS system and existing Air
Force IT systems. User acceptance testing is used to evaluate the
quality and usability of the product. USAF selected site development
will result in the deployment of ETKPS to six Air Force bases insuring
consistency across all bases.
These system capabilities will enable AFMC to organize and align
information to support on-going training and development of its total
workforce. Funding for this effort is critical to AFMC for maximizing
the effectiveness and efficiency of retaining existing knowledge
capital and for building effective training programs that support the
development of new personnel.
____________________
BAHA'I LEADERS ARRESTED IN TEHRAN
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I continue to be extremely concerned about
the treatment of Baha'is in Iran. Recent reports indicate that on May
14, Iranian intelligence agents forcibly raided the homes and
subsequently arrested six of seven prominent members of the Baha'i
leadership in Tehran. The seventh member of the leadership group was
arrested 2 months ago in Mashhad. They have reportedly been taken to
the notorious Evin prison in Tehran. Many former prisoners have given
horrifying accounts of the abuse, torture, and rape that takes place
inside the prison walls.
The Baha'is are Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority and have
faced continuous persecution since the government banned all formal
Baha'i activity in 1983. Under President Ahmadinejad, harassment,
attacks and arrests of Baha'is have become increasingly common.
In the early 1980s, 17 Baha'i leaders were arrested and either
executed, abducted and disappeared in a systematic campaign to
eliminate Baha'i influence in Iran. I pray that this is not the fate of
the six arrested this past week.
Iran continues to break its promises to the international community.
I call on the international community to follow the lead of the U.S.
State Department and strongly condemn the unwarranted arrests and
detention of the Baha'i leadership.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE MILITARY FAMILIES OF NEW JERSEY'S EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to your attention
the great Military Families of one of the great communities in New
Jersey's Eighth Congressional District, the Township of Livingston in
the County of Essex. These families, with the help and support of
various veterans and civic groups throughout Livingston, strive to
support their loved ones as they serve their Nation many miles from
home.
It is only fitting that these patriotic citizens and their courageous
family members be honored in this, the permanent record of the greatest
democracy ever known, for their efforts in support of the brave
servicemen and women who are fighting every day to help ensure that
people everywhere have the right to live in peace and safety.
Livingston has a long and glorious history among the towns of New
Jersey, and its residents have always been willing to do whatever was
needed to defend American ideals. Their families have led the way in
supporting their efforts, keeping the home fires burning, sending care
packages as well as their prayers. At this time there are over twenty-
five families whose loved ones currently serve our Nation in all
branches of the military. I would especially like to commend the
families of the following:
Nicholas Albicocco, Aaron Attermann, Jeffrey Cushman, Louis Del Tufo,
Daniel Devlin, Michael Goldfarb, John Rey Julian, Daniel Oliva, Eric
Powell, Lee Tam, Robert Tilley, Mikel Weich, Adam Winter, Charles
Garbarino.
Brian Asman, Christopher Courter, Shea Datz, Joshua Denton, Jonah
Eisenstark, Ryan Healy, John D. Kramer, Scott Perry, Steve Roman, Grant
Thompson, John Tomcyzk, Scott Wild, and Michael Wishnia.
The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is
rewarding, yet nothing compares to learning about and recognizing
outstanding citizens such as these who are making the greatest of
sacrifices for the sake of our Nation.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the citizens of
the Township of Livingston, and me in recognizing the outstanding
contributions of these families to the United States of America.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I have received congressional
authorization in the House-passed version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 for two projects in California's
44th Congressional District which are described as follows:
Requesting Member: Congressman Ken Calvert.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Standards Development--Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation, NAVY.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona
Division.
Address of Requesting Entity: Naval Surface Warfare Center Corona
Division, 2300 Fifth St., Norco, CA 92860.
Description of Request: I have received congressional authorization
in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (NDAA FY09) for a requested project in the amount
of $2,000,000. The authorization is for a project which would continue
work in the areas of Primary and Depot Maintenance calibration
standards. Specifically the work will be done in the technology areas
of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC), electro-optics, and
physical-mechanical. The purpose of the work is to ensure measurement
accuracy in support and maintenance of new advanced technology weapon
systems, current weapon systems and associated support equipment.
Specifically, the funding also continues efforts of calibration
standards (hardware) in support of Nanoscale Dimensional Standards
using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). Standards developed through this
ongoing program provides continued measurement support and capability
to ensure that our nation's advanced
[[Page 10359]]
weapon systems operate as designed and detectors accurately recognize
threats.
Requesting Member: Congressman Ken Calvert.
Bill Number: H.R. 5658.
Account: Defense Wide--Research, Development, Test & Evaluation.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Center for Nanoscale Science and
Engineering, University of California, Riverside.
Address of Requesting Entity: 900 University Avenue, Riverside,
California 92521.
Description of Request: I have received congressional authorization
in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (NDAA FY09) for a requested project in the amount
of $3,000,000 for 3-D-electronics technology. This project aims to take
advantage of recent advances in nanomaterials and nanodevices to begin
to address the issue necessary to take the electronics industry beyond
the two-dimensional silicon based devices and wiring and to develop
high density, 3D-electronics technology together with associated
packaging, portable power sources and heat dissipation solutions. UC
Riverside has substantial expertise in the development of nanomaterials
that offer extraordinary properties when properly engineered for these
applications. The proposed effort will fund technology development
studies in the following five areas: 3D integration of RF and Digital
technologies; materials development for thermal management; materials
development for 3D wiring; materials development for multi-technology
isolation; and development of process equipment for advanced 3D
processes and materials manufacturing. The availability of new
approaches to very high density electronics and compact power sources
that are built from the new generation of nanomaterials will greatly
aid the DoD mission in providing advanced electronics and power in the
battlefield.
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, May 22, 2008 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
JUNE 3
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the acquisition of major
weapons systems by the Department of Defense.
SD-106
JUNE 4
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine systemic
indifference to invisible wounds.
SR-418
10 a.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine ways to improve the detainee
policy, focusing on handling terrorism detainees within
the American justice system.
SD-226
JUNE 5
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine off-highway vehicle
management on public lands.
SD-366
JUNE 26
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
Business meeting to mark up pending calendar business.
SR-418