[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Issue]
[Pages 22275-22487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 22275]]
SENATE--Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Sovereign God, You see all that happens in our world as You lead us
by Your mercies and grace. Continue to shower our land with Your
blessings, protecting us from the forces that hinder freedom. Give our
lawmakers the wisdom to obey You, striving always to do what is right.
May their words be true and sincere and their actions be characterized
by honor and respect. Help them to keep their promises to You and to
one another, no matter how great the challenges may be. Lord, enable
them to walk securely in the path of Your will. We pray in Your great
Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Kirsten E. Gillibrand 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. Inouye).
The bill clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, December 16, 2010.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Daniel K. Inouye,
President pro tempore.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND 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. Madam President, following leader remarks, if any, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the New START
treaty. Rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day in
relation to amendments to the treaty. The managers of this bill,
Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, are two of our most experienced
Members, and they will do an outstanding job of managing this
legislation.
The current continuing resolution expires Saturday at midnight, so we
need to take action to consider a funding resolution sometime in the
next few days.
Just an update on the schedule: The tax package which we passed
yesterday is now in the House. They are going to consider that very
likely today. We have the omnibus or the continuing resolution we have
to deal with in the near future because, as I have indicated, the
funding expires at midnight on Saturday.
The DREAM Act is something we need to work on. It is an extremely
important piece of legislation allowing young men and women to join the
military. If they serve 2 years in the military, they would be eligible
to get their green cards. It also allows them to continue their
education. It is an extremely important piece of legislation.
We have the 9/11 health matter; we need to reconsider that. We hope
we can move forward on that matter. There are thousands of people who
are desperately ill who need to be helped as a result of the terrorist
attack that took place on 9/11.
Yesterday the House passed don't ask, don't tell, and we are going to
have to deal with that in some way.
We have nominations, including that of Jim Cole, the Deputy Attorney
General, we have been trying for several months now to get cleared--
that second ranking person in the entire Justice Department. It seems
to me we are having trouble getting even a vote on this individual. So
that is going to have to be resolved before we leave. It is extremely
important we do that.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order leadership
time is reserved.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
TREATY WITH RUSSIA ON MEASURES FOR FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF
STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following
treaty which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Treaty Calendar No. 7, Treaty with Russia on measures for
further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms.
Recognition of the Republican Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Omnibus Appropriations
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want the American people to see
something. This is the bill the majority would have us pass, this
Omnibus appropriations bill. It is 2,000 pages long. I think the
American people should think back to this time a year ago--last
December--when the Democrats did the very same thing. At that point, it
was a 2,700-page health care bill because, frankly, they didn't want us
to see what was in it. Only afterwards did we find out about the
``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' and all the rest.
This is eerily familiar to anyone who remembers the health care
debate. We even have snow in the forecast, which is reminiscent of last
year. Last year we voted on health care in a blizzard--the 2,700-page
health care bill in the middle of a blizzard.
This bill is so enormous it took the Government Printing Office 2
days to print it. It spends more than $\1/2\ billion a page. Let's take
a look at it again.
Here is the bill. It spends--right at 2,000 pages in this bill--it
spends $\1/2\ billion a page. It has more than $\1/2\ billion in it for
the Democratic health care bill we passed last year, the 2,700-page
bill that looked pretty much like this. It has $\1/2\ billion in it for
that health care bill we passed last year.
An ever-growing number of Americans looking at that health care bill
would like for us to repeal it, not fund it. This is exactly the kind
of thing the American people voted against last November--just this
kind of thing. We had a referendum on November 2 on how the American
people felt about what we have been doing for the last 2 years, and
right at the top of the list was the 2,700-page health care bill.
Frankly, it is just unbelievable. Just a few weeks after the voters
told us they don't want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly,
far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this 2,000-page bill.
They want to ram this gigantic, trillion-dollar bill through Congress,
and they are using, once again, the Christmas break as an inducement to
vote for it.
Look, we all know this is not the way to legislate. Americans expect
more
[[Page 22276]]
from Congress and they demanded more on election day. That is why today
I am introducing this clean, one-page continuing resolution that would
operate the government through February 18. So we have a choice. We can
pass this 2,000-page bill spending $\1/2\ billion a page, or we can do
this one-page, clean continuing resolution through February 18 of next
year. That is the choice we have.
Once the new Congress is sworn in, we will have a chance to pass a
less expensive bill, free of this kind of wasteful spending. Until
then, we need to take a step back and respect the will of the voters.
I think the message was pretty clear last November. One pundit
referred to it as a restraining order. In other words: Quit doing what
you have been doing. Here we are 1 month after the election attempting
to pass this 2,000-page bill when we could pass a one-pager that would
simply continue the government through February 18.
So we are going to have an opportunity to do this. I hope it makes
sense on a bipartisan basis, this one-page continuing resolution until
February 18, as an alternative to this 2,000-page monstrosity that
spends $\1/2\ billion a page. I don't think there is any question it is
the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues decide in the end that
is the direction we ought to take. I am going to introduce this, and I
just wanted to highlight it for my colleagues.
Tributes to Retiring Senators
Jim Bunning
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know there are others on the Senate
floor seeking to speak, but I wish to bid farewell to one of our
colleagues. Few people can say they have had the same range of
experience and successes in life as Senator Jim Bunning. In fact, there
isn't even another Major Leaguer who can say he struck out Ted Williams
three times in one game. Jim accomplished that notable feat in just his
second year in the majors.
Thirty-nine years after that, he had become the only member of the
Baseball Hall of Fame to serve in Congress. For the past 12 years, I
have been honored to work alongside this remarkable American in the
Senate. We followed different paths in life, but we sure have deep love
for Kentucky and its people. It has been my honor over the years to
work closely with Jim to advance our common goals.
So today I wish to say a few words about my good friend as we honor
his remarkable life and his remarkable service.
Jim was born and raised in Southgate, KY, and it wouldn't surprise
anybody to learn he excelled in school and in sports growing up. He
played baseball as a teenager at St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati,
but it was for his skills as a basketball player that would earn him an
athletic scholarship to Xavier University.
Baseball interrupted his college education, but at his father's
insistence, Jim would return to Xavier and earn a degree in economics
that would serve him well in Congress over the years. He entered the
majors in 1955, and over the course of a storied 17-year career he
would play for the Detroit Tigers, the Philadelphia Phillies, the
Pittsburgh Pirates, and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Jim is a pretty
imposing force at committee hearings--just ask Chairman Bernanke--but
he was a dominating presence on the mound long before that.
At 6 feet 4 inches, he was a hard-throwing sidearmer who would tumble
off the mound with every pitch he threw. By the end of his career, Jim
could boast he was the first Major League pitcher to win 100 games,
rack up 1,000 strikeouts, and throw no-hitters in both leagues. He
finished with an impressive 224 wins, 184 losses, 2,855 strikeouts, and
a 3.27 ERA--the career stats that would earn him a spot in the Baseball
Hall of Fame.
Jim's two greatest pitching achievements were his no-hitter in 1958
and the perfect game he threw on Father's Day, 1964, a feat that has
only been accomplished 20 times in baseball history. Another little
known feat was Jimmy's so-called ``immaculate inning'' in 1959 when he
struck out three Red Sox on nine pitches, a feat that has only been
achieved 43 other times in baseball history.
Around here we joke that Jim likes to throw the high hard ones, but
he developed the skill early. Over a 4-year period with the Phillies,
Jim hit more opposing batters with pitches than any other pitcher in
the league. In fact, over a 17-year career, he plunked 160 batters or
nearly 10 batters a year, making him the 13th most dangerous pitcher of
all time, ahead of such other well-known head hunters as Roger Clemens,
Nolan Ryan, and Don Drysdale.
Jim has never been afraid of a little chin music, and he brought that
same competitive mentality to his life in public service. After
baseball, public service seemed like a logical choice. It was Jimmy's
turn to give back, and give back is exactly what he did.
When Jim walks out of this Chamber for the last time at the end of
this session, he will be able to say with justifiable pride that he has
given 33 years of his life to public service and to Kentucky.
Over those three decades, Jim has served in all levels of
government--from the Fort Thomas City Council to the Kentucky State
Senate, to both Chambers in this building--12 years in the House and 12
in the Senate. He has dedicated his life to serving the people of
Kentucky, and Kentuckians are grateful for his service.
In the House, he made a name for himself, among other things, by
working tirelessly to strengthen and protect Social Security as
chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security.
And then, in 1998, he decided to make a run at the U.S. Senate seat
which at the time was held by Wendell Ford. It turned out to be a
pretty close election, but once he arrived in the Senate, Jim set out
to become one of the hardest-working and most influential Members of
this Chamber.
He has been a staunch social and fiscal conservative, and a budget
hawk who for years has sounded the alarm on the kind of concerns about
spending and debt that drove so many Americans to the polls this month.
Jim spoke for many Americans when he said in a recent statement that,
being a grandfather to many he worries that future generations will be
saddled by the poor decisions that are being made today. ``For the
first time in my life,'' he said, ``I question if my grandchildren will
have the same opportunities that I
had . . .''
One particular issue that has been close to Jim's heart is the issue
of adoption. In 2001, Jim introduced legislation to make adopting more
affordable to American families. And in 2007, he introduced legislation
to make those tax incentives permanent.
And, of course, if there was ever a controversial issue regarding the
national pastime on Capitol Hill, Jim was right at the forefront,
including the 2005 hearings related to steroid use in baseball. In one
memorable exchange from that hearing, Jim offered the following
testimony, from his own experience as a player: ``Mr. Chairman,'' he
said, ``maybe I'm old-fashioned,'' [but] I remember players didn't get
better as they got older. We all got worse. When I played with Hank
Aaron and Willie Mays and Ted Williams, they didn't put on 40 pounds to
bulk up in their careers and they didn't hit more homers in their late
30's than they did in their late 20's.'' It was just this kind of
straightforward, commonsense approach to the issues that has won Jim a
legion of admirers not only on the baseball diamond, but off of it. And
on this issue in particular, Jim's passion and personal perspective
helped shed light not only on the dangers of steroid use at the
professional level, but on the growing steroid epidemic among young
athletes at all levels.
Despite his high profile, Jim never forgot about the issues that
mattered most to his constituents back home. He's been a staunch
supporter of clean coal technologies as an effective, efficient way to
use coal, improve our environment, and bring jobs to Kentucky. Another
issue that was extremely important to all Kentuckians was the failed
clean up of radioactive contamination that was found in the drinking
[[Page 22277]]
water wells of residences near the Department of Energy's uranium
enrichment plant in Paducah, KY, in 1988. In 2004, Jim harshly
criticized the DOE's cleanup efforts, as well as called several
hearings on Capitol Hill to draw attention to DOE's failure to
compensate many workers that had been stricken with radiation-related
diseases.
In every issue he has taken on, whether national, statewide or local,
Jim has been a man of principle from start to finish. He has stayed
true to himself. And in a truly remarkable life, he has got a lot to be
proud of. But if you were to ask Jim to list his greatest achievement,
I don't think he would say it was his election to the U.S. Senate or
his induction to the Hall of Fame. They would both come in a distant
second and third to the day he married his high school sweetheart,
Mary. Jim and Mary still live in the northern Kentucky town where he
grew up. They have been married for nearly 60 years. Together, they
have raised nine children. And they enjoy nothing more than spending
time with the next generation of Bunnings--which last time I checked
included 35 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren. Jim will tell you
there's no secret to his success. He is happy to give all the credit to
Mary. As he put it in his Hall of Fame induction speech, she is his
``rock.''
Today, we honor and pay tribute to our friend and colleague for more
than three decades of public service. Jim will be remembered for his
two Hall of Fame-worthy careers, for his example of principled
leadership, and for his devotion to God, country, and family. On behalf
of myself and the entire Senate family, Jim, we thank you for your
service, and we wish you the best in the next chapter of your life.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I join Senator McConnell in a tribute to my
friend and colleague, Jim Bunning. Jim and I came into the House of
Representatives at the same time as parts of the 100th class. I have
enjoyed being with him as well in the Senate. Jim and Mary are counted
as among the best friends my wife Carol and I have. I agree with
Senator McConnell that while people may disagree with Jim Bunning, no
one has ever doubted his courage, his sincerity, his love for this
country, his desire to do what is right, and his commitment to all
those efforts. So I will greatly miss Jim when he is no longer part of
the Senate. I think it is probably time for Jim and Mary to have a
little bit of time to spend with all those children, grandchildren, and
great-grandchildren. Obviously, we all wish them both well.
omnibus appropriations
Madam President, I will speak for a few moments about the matter
Senator McConnell brought to our attention; namely, this almost 2,000-
page Omnibus appropriations bill. I know the majority leader has turned
to the START treaty, and I think it is fairly obvious why. The American
people are focused like a laser beam on this spending bill. I can't
turn on the TV without hearing comments by both the commentators as
well as people in public life about what this spending bill will do for
this country's future.
I think it is time we devote some attention to this spending bill,
rather than put it under the table and talk about the START treaty
instead, which, after all, we could accomplish at any time.
As the majority leader said, spending for the U.S. Government runs
out at midnight Saturday night. I can hear the cries at that time: We
have an emergency on our hands. You don't want to shut down the Federal
Government, do you? We have to do something.
Well, the something is apparently this 2,000-page, over $1 trillion
bill, which will not have had adequate time for debate or exposure to
the American people. Apparently, under the schedule, as it now is, it
would not even entitle us to try to amend it. Think about that for a
moment. That which is most important to the American people and the
subject of the message conveyed in this last election--to stop the
wasteful Washington spending--we are not even going to be able to amend
the $1 trillion-plus bill that has been laid before us.
I know--and I think most people in this body know--how important
international relations and treaties are, including the START treaty.
But I also agree with the colorful comment by James Carville, a former
adviser to President Clinton, who has a way with words. He said the
American people don't give a pig's patooty about the START treaty.
Obviously, those of us in the Senate do. We understand its
importance. But at this moment, the most important thing on the minds
of the American people is how we are going to fund the Federal
Government without continuing to waste billions of dollars of their
money. That is what we ought to be focusing on in the last few hours we
have.
Let me address a little bit about what we have found so far is in
this bill and why so many of us are so concerned about it. The first
point I will make is, I don't think ever in the history of the modern
Congress that Congress has failed or the Senate has failed to pass a
single appropriations bill. The American people should understand that,
ordinarily, Congress passes a budget and we each--both bodies--pass
about 12, sometimes 13 bills, to fund the different agencies and
departments and functions of the U.S. Government. We didn't do that
this year. We didn't pass a single one. We didn't pass a budget. So now
the emergency that occurs, because we will run out of funding on
Saturday, obviously, is laid at the feet of the majority, which didn't
do its work earlier in the year, and that forces us into the position
of having to act in this emergency way.
As the Republican leader said, ironically, this is at the same time
we were considering the health care legislation last year, the week
before Christmas, in a situation in which Members have very little time
and ability to change the legislation that is before us, a bill that
will cost more than $1 trillion. Very few Members will have time to
analyze it, let alone read it.
Funding of the government, of course, is one of the most important
responsibilities that we as Senators have. But as I said, this bill is
going to get short shrift on the floor because it appears we will not
even have an opportunity to amend it, if the majority leader's schedule
holds.
Let's talk about some of the specifics in it. As I said, it costs
more than $1 trillion. There is nearly $18 billion more spending in
this legislation than in the temporary continuing resolution that was
enacted last September. In other words, at that time, we understood we
needed to begin the process of funding the government, even though not
a single appropriations bill had been passed. So we passed legislation
that, over a 12-month period, was $18 billion less than the bill that
comes before us now. I don't think this is responsible, and I think
most Americans who have had to trim their budgets would agree it is not
responsible.
The bill contains more than 6,700 earmarks. Think about that for a
moment. There are only 535 Members of Congress. Most of us don't have
earmarks in this bill. So at 6,700 earmarks, you are talking about some
legislators in the House and Senate having numerous earmarks. The total
is $8 billion worth of earmarks. There is a debate about whether
earmarks are good or bad, and some who believe they are OK say it is
not that much money. But $8 billion is a lot of money no matter who is
doing the counting--even in the Federal Government. It includes
things--and I don't like to make fun of these things because they all
have some purpose--like $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes in
Washington. I am sure it is important to have virus-free wine grapes,
but the last time I checked, the people who grow grapes are doing
fairly well financially and could probably afford, if all the wine
growers pool their resources, to come up with $200,000 to try to make
sure their grapes are free of virus.
There is a $100,000 appropriation for the Edgar Allan Poe Visitor
Center in
[[Page 22278]]
New York. Edgar Allan Poe is certainly an iconic American literary
figure, but for the Federal Government--I mean the taxpayers in Arizona
probably don't appreciate the need to pony up money for the Edgar Allan
Poe Visitor Center in New York.
The omnibus bill contains upward of a $1 billion increase in spending
for the vastly unpopular health care bill Americans said they didn't
want and continue to strongly oppose. Here are a couple of the details
on that. There is an allocation of $750 million for the Prevention and
Public Health Fund slush fund for a variety of programs--not named; a
$175.9 million adjustment in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services program management account to implement the massive Medicaid
expansion, as well as cuts to Medicare Advantage--something my
constituents strongly objected to; an $80.7 million adjustment for HHS
program management, on and on.
There are millions included for implementation of the very
controversial Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, including a Securities
and Exchange Commission funding increase of $189 million. That is 17
percent more than last year; a Commodity Futures Trading Commission
funding increase of $117.2 million or a 69-percent increase over last
year's funding; Treasury gets increase of $32.35 million or a 10-
percent increase. It goes on and on.
The omnibus also contains $790 million for an increase in education
stimulus programs. A thorough examination of those programs reveals
that, at least in some cases, they advance the cause of the teachers
unions--at least in my view--more than the cause of educating American
children.
Some claim that at least you can say this bill's top line--its gross
amount of spending is consistent with the budget proposal advocated by
Senators Sessions, McCaskill, and many of the rest of us, including
myself. But that is not true, as it turns out. It excludes numerous
parts, such as multiyear spending caps, enforcement mechanisms, and
limitations on emergency spending designations--something I will talk
about in a second. In addition, the majority is using a budgetary
sleight of hand to ostensibly meet the spending caps for 2011. This is
what I was going to mention. They do this by a trick of retroactively
declaring spending in last year's supplemental appropriations bill for
Agent Orange claims as an emergency. So that money is spent. It was
last year's funding. Now we are going to call that money emergency
funding. What is the effect? It doesn't count and reduces the baseline
and, like magic, by treating it as an emergency--to the tune of almost
$3.5 billion--they have been able to secure a lower CBO score on the
bill and, therefore, not exceed the spending caps. Without the gimmick,
they obviously would have exceeded the spending caps proposed in the
Sessions-McCaskill legislation.
I will mention process briefly. This bill is being considered under a
deeply flawed process, as the Republican leader said. Voters made a
very clear statement, I think, last month. They do not like wasteful
Washington spending. They want it to stop. They didn't like the health
care bill. They do not want us--here, a week before Christmas--to rush
very complex, very large bills through the Congress without time for
their representatives to read them, to study them and have an
opportunity, potentially, to amend them. But under the schedule laid
out, as I said, an open amendment process for this bill would be
impossible.
At the very least, one would think Republicans should be entitled to
1 or 2 amendments to each of the 12 appropriations bills that are
included within this giant Omnibus appropriations package. Under
regular order, each of these bills would take at least several days of
floor time and we would consider numerous amendments. That is not going
to happen with this bill. Instead, we will do the equivalent of more
than a month's work of floor time in a couple of days, with no
amendments. And some wonder why Congress' approval rating has fallen to
13 percent. Someone said: Who is the 13 percent? And the answer was:
Well, it is our staff and our families. Maybe.
Let me conclude here with a little bit about jobs and energy prices.
This bill will raise energy prices in the United States and destroy
energy jobs through and including some of the following provisions:
There is a ban on shallow water drilling. I thought the whole idea--
especially after the gulf, where we had deepwater drilling problems--
was to encourage drilling in shallow waters to make up for that other
loss of production. The bill changes the law to triple the time for the
Department of the Interior to approve exploration plans for offshore
operators from 30 to 90 days. This provision could lead to huge
financial penalties to the government, breach of contracts, and add
further impediments to creating jobs and energy here at home.
The bill reduces the State's share of Federal onshore oil and gas
production revenues to 48 percent, down from the 50-50 split required
under current law, and it raises fees for onshore and offshore oil and
gas production on Federal lands. These fees amount to a tax that will
make domestic energy production more expensive to produce, especially
for the small businesses that do so.
There is much more--much more the American people should know--but we
are supposed to be talking about an arms control treaty with Russia
instead. I want to remind everyone that we are in a lameduck Congress,
and my view is that trying to enact such a huge and complex bill within
the narrow postelection timeframe shows disrespect for the democratic
process. For that reason and the others I have discussed, I urge my
colleagues to oppose cloture on this bill and to pass a sensible
continuing resolution of the kind the Republican leader has introduced.
I want to leave no doubt about this final point. Those who are
watching this process carefully and who understand how the process
works understand that the important vote here is on cloture. It is the
first vote. It is, in effect, the vote to consider this omnibus bill.
Our constituents will not be fooled by Senators who vote ``yes'' on
cloture to go to this bill--ensuring it will be considered under this
rushed process without amendment--but then who vote ``no'' on final
passage, after it is too late to
op the flawed process and say, well, I voted ``no'' on the bill.
Well, of course, they voted ``no'' on the bill, but then it was too
late.
The key vote is on the cloture vote, whenever that might occur, and I
am told it might occur at actually 12:01 on Sunday morning--in other
words, one minute after midnight. Well, that would be very reminiscent
of last year's consideration of the health care bill, where through all
the procedural gimmickry this body did not distinguish itself in
adopting legislation under a process the American people saw through,
objected to, and continue to criticize the legislation adopted as a
result of the process as well as its substance.
If we want to do the same thing with this legislation, then it will
demonstrate in the very first act relating to spending after the
election that this Senate did not get the message sent by the American
people.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, are we in morning business at this
point?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the treaty.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Omnibus Appropriations
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to respond to what has been said
by my friend Senator Kyl from Arizona, as well as Senator McConnell of
Kentucky, about the appropriations bill, which we are going to consider
in a very short period of time.
I am a member of this Appropriations Committee. I remember what
happened, and I want to put it on the record right now so that some of
the things that have been said can be compared to what I think is the
reality. This is the reality: The Appropriations
[[Page 22279]]
subcommittees--each and every subcommittee of that full committee--met
with Democrats and Republicans and prepared a bill. I have the
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Senator
Susan Collins of Maine worked long and hard in preparation of that
bill. Other subcommittee chairs did the same thing. There was full
bipartisan cooperation in the preparation of each of these subcommittee
bills--every single one of them. And the appropriations bill that we
will vote on is the combination of all of that effort.
Let me also talk about the amount of money we are going to
appropriate to continue to fund the operations of our Federal
Government.
It is true, it is over $1 trillion. In fact, it is $1.1 trillion in
this bill. But what hasn't been said by Senator McConnell and Senator
Kyl is that is exactly the amount they asked for. Senator McConnell
came to the Senate Appropriations Committee and said Republicans will
not support this bill unless you bring the spending down to $1.108
trillion. That is exactly what we bring to the floor to be considered.
So to stand back in horror and look at $1.1 trillion and say, where
did this figure come from, well, it came from Senator Mitch McConnell
in a motion he made before the Senate Appropriations Committee. It
reflects the amount that he said was the maximum we should spend in
this current calendar year on our appropriations bills. He prevailed.
It is the same number as the so-called Sessions-McCaskill figure that
has been debated back and forth on this floor, voted repeatedly by the
Republicans to be the appropriate total number. So we have a bipartisan
agreement on the total number. Yet now the Republican leader comes to
the floor, stands in horror at the idea of $1.1 trillion--the very same
number he asked for in this bill. You can't have it both ways.
Secondly, they say, well, this is a 2,000-page bill. Well, allow me
to explain why.
When you take the work of 12 subcommittees, instead of separate bills
and put them in one bill, the total number of pages is going to
increase. Maybe the best thing we can give as a Christmas gift to the
Senate Republican Caucus is a speed reading course so they can sit down
and read these bills. It turns out their fingers get smudgy and their
lips get tired if you have more than 100 pages in a bill. Over and over
we are told, don't worry about the substance, just count the pages, and
if it gets up to a thousand pages, it is clearly a bad bill. Wrong.
This 2,000-page bill reflects the work of 12 subcommittees and 12
Republican Senators who helped to assemble and to devise the contents
of that bill. It is no surprise that it would reach that number when we
put all of the spending bills--the Appropriations subcommittee bills--
into one document.
Another point that is raised--what a surprise--we have this thing
thrown at us. We have not seen this before. We don't have time to look
at this.
This bill was posted 2 days ago, and will be available not only for
every Senator and every staff member but for every citizen of this
country to look at in detail. The reason Members have been coming to
the floor talking about its contents is they have access to it, and
have had for almost 48 hours, and will for an even longer period of
time before it is finally considered.
I also want to say that the schedule we are facing here now, which is
putting us up against some deadlines--deadlines for the funding of
government, a lot of personal family deadlines, which trouble all of
us, but we accepted this job and its responsibility--many of these
deadlines have come to be because of an exercise of the Senate rules.
Time and time and time again the Republican minority has forced us to
go into a cloture vote, into a filibuster--record-breaking numbers of
filibusters over the last several years.
If Members of the Senate were to go back home and ask the cable TV
viewers who watch C-SPAN what their impression of the Senate is, their
impression is an empty Chamber--an empty Chamber because day after
weary day we have had to put up with cloture votes and filibusters from
the Republican side, delaying us time and time and time again while we
burned off the hours on the clock instead of rolling up our sleeves and
actually getting down to business.
Now they come and tell us, well, we are going to threaten to start
reading bills. They have a right to do that under the rules. It is
really not needed, since all these bills have been posted and any
Senator who wanted to read them has now had 48 hours to read this
appropriations bill, if they wanted to. But they may burn off hours on
the clock again and then complain we are ruining Christmas for Members
of the Senate and their families. Well, unfortunately, their hands are
not clean.
When it comes to the things included in this bill, incidentally, I
have heard many Republican Senators come down here and talk about
specific elements in this Appropriations bill they disagree with, and
that is their right. But many of the same Senators who are criticizing
congressionally directed spending, or earmarks, have earmarks in the
bill. That is the height of hypocrisy--to stand up and request an
earmark, have it included in the bill, and then fold your arms and
piously announce, I am against earmarks. You ought to be consistent
enough to know if you are asking for an earmark one day and criticizing
it the next, your credibility is going to be challenged. That is a
fact.
As far as some of the things that have been talked about, one of them
brought up by Senator Kyl relates to drilling, and how quickly drilling
permits will be issued by the Federal Government.
Our Department of Interior has asked for 90 days to review
applications for drilling permits included in the bill. Why would we
want to be careful when it comes to drilling permits? America knows
why. We saw what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. We saw the damage
done. And we know for many businesses and many families and many
people, and for a very fragile environment, things will never be the
same. Let us avoid that from happening in the future. Waiting 90 days
instead of 30 days is hardly an onerous burden to make sure that what
is done is done properly and done in a way that won't come back to
haunt us.
Finally, to argue this is disrespectful of the democratic process is
to ignore the obvious. Time and time and time again, when we have tried
to move the democratic process, we have run into a roadblock with
filibusters from the other side of the aisle--obstructionism.
I am glad we passed the tax bill yesterday. It was an amazing day. I
think the final vote was 81 to 18, which was an incredibly strong
bipartisan showing. Let's end this session on a bipartisan note. Let's
get away from lobbing bombs back and forth across the aisle. Let us
roll up our sleeves and get down to what we need to do.
Senator Kyl should come to the floor and offer his amendment on the
START treaty. He has talked about needing time to offer amendments.
Let's do it, and let's do it this morning. Let's start the amendment
process, let's have votes, let's not filibuster anything. Let's get to
the vote, vote on the substance, and let's bring it to an end. Then let
us bring up the Omnibus appropriations bill and the CR, let the Senate
work its will, and let's vote on it.
We have two or three other items we can complete, and if people don't
exercise delay tactics, we can get this done in a few days. I urge my
colleagues, in the spirit of what we did with the President's tax
package, let's return to a more bipartisan approach to completing our
business and going home to our families.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. What is the business before the Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The START treaty.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I wish to work with my colleague, the
chairman of our committee, to make time available to Senators. I see
the distinguished Senator on the floor.
Are you prepared, sir, to make a statement?
[[Page 22280]]
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, yes, I am.
Mr. LUGAR. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to express my views on
the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START. This
treaty is an extremely important and serious matter. New START
significantly impacts America's national security and nuclear
deterrent. As a result, I believe this treaty deserves adequate time in
the Senate--time to examine the issues, time to debate the many flawed
provisions, and time to vote on all of the amendments offered for
consideration.
The majority leader should not be piecemealing together segments of
time for debate on an issue as important as nuclear arms control. The
treaty should not be shortchanged and rushed through the Senate. The
treaty should not be jammed together with consideration of a 1,924-page
omnibus Federal spending bill. The treaty should not be considered
during a lameduck session.
Consideration of the treaty will require a substantial amount of time
in order to sufficiently address its many flaws. Like many of my
colleagues, I plan on offering amendments, amendments designed to
protect our national security. This debate concerns the national
security of the United States. It is critical that the United States
maintains a strong nuclear deterrent in order to defend our Nation and
provide assurances to our allies. I have major concerns about the
impact the New START will have on Wyoming and on national security.
While I have many issues with the New START, I want to address only a
few of my major concerns this morning. First, START straitjackets the
U.S. missile defense capabilities. Second, START offers no method to
make sure a historically noncompliant Russia state will keep its
promises. Third, the approach embodied by START is representative of an
outdated and simplistic view of the U.S. position on the world stage.
To begin, I wish to specifically discuss the limitations placed on
the U.S. missile defense by the New START. The treaty signed by
President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010, places
explicit limitations on U.S. missile defense. The preamble of the
treaty--the preamble declares an interrelationship between strategic
nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. It
implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S.
missile defenses that are beyond ``current strategic'' capabilities.
The treaty preamble, the very preamble of the treaty, gives Russia an
opportunity to turn their backs on the treaty at the slightest sign of
a shift in American defensive strategy. This language is unacceptable
and needs to be removed.
I offered an amendment in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
to strike this language. The White House resists any attempt to amend
the preamble. The administration argues it is a nonbinding concession
to Russia. Russia clearly doesn't see it that same way. They have made
it quite clear they consider the preamble legally binding. A Russian
Foreign Minister stated the treaty contained ``legally binding linkage
between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' The
Russians have wanted this language for a long time in order to have
grounds to claim that the U.S. missile defense program violates an
international agreement. This type of constraining language is not
unique to the preamble.
The treaty also places a legally binding limitation on missile
defense in article V of the treaty. Article V prohibits the
transforming of offensive strategic missile launchers into defensive
strategic missile launchers. As this Nation continues to face threats
from around the world, we should not take any action that will hinder
our missile defense options. We need to be able to defend ourselves.
Just like the preamble, the administration makes excuses as to why
they have made concessions to the Russians on our missile defense. The
current administration claims that they have no plans to use the
missile defense options prohibited under the new START treaty. I
believe that placing any constraints on future U.S. defense
capabilities should not even be up for debate, let alone placed in a
treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons.
The purpose of New START was to reduce strategic nuclear weapons
between the United States and Russia, not limit the ability of the
United States to defend ourselves. It is outrageous that the
administration would make any concessions to Russia on our national
security.
The United States must always remain in charge of our own missile
defense--not Russia, not any other country. We should not be tying our
hands behind our backs and risking the security of our Nation and our
allies. Russia is trying to force the United States to choose between
missile defense and the treaty. The clear choice should always be to
protect the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. I believe
the administration's decision was a serious mistake.
I also have major concerns about the central limits of New START.
This treaty is a one-sided agreement aimed at only reducing U.S.
strategic nuclear weapons. Russia is currently below the limit for
strategic nuclear delivery vehicles under the New START treaty. As a
result, Russia will not have to make reductions. The United States will
be the only party required to slash its forces.
Due to loopholes in the treaty counting rules, Russia could deploy
more than 1,550 warheads, go above that ceiling and still be in
compliance with the treaty. Russia may even be able to deploy more than
2,100 warheads under the treaty. Each deployed heavy bomber, regardless
of the actual number of warheads on it, only counts as one deployed
strategic warhead. If anything, the limits just tell Russia how many
weapons they are allowed to add to their strategic nuclear force. Why
would the administration enter into a bilateral treaty that only
requires the United States to make sacrifices? This is not acceptable.
New START offers us nothing in return, not even a robust verification
mechanism that enables us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises.
President Ronald Reagan regularly repeated the phrase ``trust, but
verify.'' He did it repeatedly regarding nuclear weapons. The
verification measures play an important role in analyzing the New
START. The New START has a weak verification regime.
Former Secretary of State James Baker made the exact point by
indicating the New START verification procedure provisions, he said,
were weaker than the original New START. Under New START, the U.S.
would be limited to 18 inspections per year as opposed to 28 in the
past. Under the original START treaty the United States conducted
approximately 600 inspections. Under New START the United States is
limited to a maximum of 180 inspections. This further plays into
Russia's favor due to there being 35 Russian facilities compared to
only 17 U.S. facilities to inspect.
The administration also dropped two key provisions from New START.
The United States will no longer have continuous monitoring at the
Russian nuclear missile assembly plant. We had it in START I. Why are
we giving up this important verification component in New START? The
United States also will not have full access to Russian nuclear
ballistic missile launch telemetry under New START. Under START I we
had unrestricted access. Why are we giving that up?
The treaty does not provide us with the verification mechanisms that
enable us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises. Instead, there
is a lot of trust and precious little verification.
A weaker verification system is even more dangerous due to Russia's
long history of noncompliance on arms control treaties. Russia has a
record of noncompliance and violations under the original START treaty.
Up until the end of the original START treaty
[[Page 22281]]
in December of 2009, Russia was continuing to engage in compliance
violations. The Department of State compliance reports from 2010 spell
out the numerous violations made by the Russians.
Finally, the treaty relies on the false premise that Russia is
America's only nuclear rival. This view of the world is outdated and
simplistic. Even if we could trust Russia there are numerous other
threats such as North Korea and Iran which have repeatedly shown
hostility to the United States and to our allies. We should never
abandon our defenses and sacrifice our deterrent in the face of
increasing international belligerence. It is the equivalent of asking
America to stare down the barrel of a gun without knowing whether the
gun is loaded, and then to trust the person holding it not to pull the
trigger.
In arguing for this treaty the administration has tried to have it
both ways. The treaty demands the United States reduce our nuclear
strike force by specific numbers. Yet the administration has only
offered a vague range of estimates regarding where these cuts would
take place. The President's force structure plan provides up to 420
intercontinental ballistic missiles, 14 submarines carrying up to 240
submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and up to 60 nuclear-capable
levee bombers.
Even if the administration did cut the absolute maximum number of
weapons it has proposed to cut, it would still fail to live up to the
reductions demanded by New START. Instead of giving the Senate a
specific force structure, the President is repeating his health care
playbook and telling us to wait until after the United States ratifies
the treaty to find out the details.
It is wrong that the Senate is considering approving this treaty
without knowing these details, and these details matter.
The force structure of our nuclear triad is critical to maintaining
an effective deterrent. The nuclear triad of the United States spans
sea, air, and land. By working together, our nuclear triad complicates
and deters any attempt at a successful first strike by anyone on our
country. I believe the President's force structure proposal will weaken
our nuclear triad.
The American people deserve a full debate on the Senate floor on a
treaty of this magnitude. It is my hope that the Senate will take its
constitutional responsibility very seriously and provide the New START
with the scrutiny it deserves.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I understand the distinguished Senator on
the floor wishes to speak. I yield for Senator Udall.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, let me start by thanking my
good friend from Indiana, not only for yielding the floor to me but for
his strong leadership on this crucial treaty before us here in the
Senate.
I rise in strong support of the New START treaty. I want to start by
reminding my colleagues that arms control treaties are an integral part
of this country's modern history, premised on a shared belief that a
world with fewer nuclear weapons is a safer world. Even as the Cold War
raged, it was Ronald Reagan who committed America to the ultimate goal
of eliminating these weapons from the face of the Earth.
Those are his very words. This goal has animated numerous arms
control agreements since then and it underpins the New START treaty, an
agreement I believe we cannot fail to ratify. The dangers of nuclear
proliferation have grown. As the Senator from Indiana knows well,
because this has been a part of his life's work, the threat of global
nuclear war has receded but the risk of nuclear attack has increased,
enabled by the spread of nuclear technology and the danger of materials
falling into the wrong hands.
I believe we cannot be seen as a credible leader of a nation strongly
committed to meeting our nonproliferation obligations unless we pursue
further nuclear arms reductions ourselves. The United States and Russia
have over 90 percent of the world's nuclear arms between us. Thus, we
have an obligation to verifiably decrease our nuclear stockpiles and
reduce this primary threat to global and national security. That is why
the New START treaty matters. It establishes limits for U.S. and
Russian nuclear weapons to levels lower than the 1991 START Treaty and
the 2002 Moscow treaty.
These limits have been validated by our defense planners and ensure
that we have the flexibility to meet our security needs.
The treaty also includes a strong verification regime, which
Secretary Gates called the ``key contribution'' of the agreement.
As we debate this agreement today, we should not only consider the
consequences of ratification but also the consequences of failure.
Because START expired over a year ago, we currently have no treaty and,
therefore no constraints on Russia's stockpile or verification of their
weapons.
The choice facing U.S. Presidents through the decades has been
whether we are better off signing arms agreement with the Russians or
pursuing an arms race. Historically, Presidents from both parties and
bipartisan majorities in the U.S. Senate have agreed that we are better
served by agreements.
Today is no different. As U.S. Strategic Command's General Chilton
testified, without a treaty, Russia is not constrained in its
development of force structure, and we have no insight into its nuclear
program, making this ``the worst of both possible worlds.''
Failure to ratify this treaty would make the broad ``resetting'' of
U.S.-Russian relations harder. The distrust it would engender would
also reduce or even eliminate the possibility of further bilateral
strategic weapons reductions. As former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft--I think we would all agree he is one of the wisest Americans
about foreign policy--testified earlier this year, ``the principal
result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear
negotiating situation into a state of chaos.''
But we need to remember that this treaty is not just about Washington
and Moscow, it is also about the world community and our global
relationships. Failure to ratify this treaty would signal to the world
that America is not willing to constrain its own weapons arsenal, even
as we ask other countries to restrict theirs or avoid joining the
``nuclear club'' altogether.
It would discourage multilateral cooperation on nonproliferation
goals and hinder our ability to lead by example. It would make global
cooperation on dealing with rogue states like Iran and North Korea more
challenging, tying our hands at a time when the threat from those two
countries is increasing.
Treaty opponents have tried to make the case that the dangers of
ratifying the agreement outweigh the advantages of ratification. They
are simply wrong.
They argue that the treaty limits our ability to develop missile
defense capabilities. The head of the Missile Defense Agency argued,
that the treaty actually reduces constraints on missile defense. And
countless military and civilian leaders, including the former
Secretaries of State for the last five Republican Presidents, have
publicly stated that New START preserves our ability to deploy
effective missile defenses.
Treaty opponents argue it inhibits our ability to maintain an
effective and reliable nuclear arsenal. It is true that this
administration inherited an underfunded and undervalued nuclear weapons
complex. But the President understands that the nuclear experts and
infrastructure that maintain our arsenal also help secure loose nuclear
materials, verify weapons reductions and develop technologies that
underpin our nuclear deterrent.
That is why the President's budget request provides $7 billion for
these programs this year, a 10-percent increase over last year. New
START would in no way limit these investments. And as treaty opponents
know well, the President has offered an even more robust investment in
modernization and refurbishment of our nuclear
[[Page 22282]]
infrastructure over the next 10 years, totaling $84 billion.
The importance of ratifying this treaty goes beyond politics. We know
that a lack of demonstrated bipartisan support could poison relations
with Russia and our allies. And we cannot risk the loss of American
leadership in the world that would ensue if we are perceived as too
entangled in our own internal politics to ratify a strategic arms
treaty that is clearly beneficial to our own security.
I know that some of my colleagues hope to amend this treaty and, in
so doing, kill it, since any changes will require the administration to
start from scratch and reopen negotiations with the Russians. I urge
them to reconsider and to think about what is at stake.
And I urge them and all my colleagues to listen to our military
leadership when they tell us that this treaty is essential to our
national security. As Senator Lugar pointed out yesterday in his
eloquent statement, ``Rejecting an unequivocal military opinion on a
treaty involving nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary position
for the Senate to take.''
Let us not allow this to be the first time in history that the Senate
denies ratification to a treaty with overwhelming bipartisan support
and the endorsement of the full breadth of our military and civilian
leaders. I urge my colleagues to support this treaty and to support a
safer world.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator very much for
his comments and his support. It is my understanding that Senator
Ensign was going to speak at this point in time. He is on his way. We
are happy to accommodate that.
Let me say to colleagues that we are open for business. We are ready
to entertain amendments people may have. We encourage colleagues to
come down here. Obviously, some people have raised the question of the
press of time, but it does not seem, from both yesterday and today,
that anybody is actually in a rush to bring an amendment.
We are prepared to vote on our side of the aisle. I want to make that
very clear. There are 58 Democratic Senators and Senator Lugar who
obviously are working to advance this treaty. We do not have any
amendments. We are prepared to vote. So if colleagues want to bring an
amendment, now is the time to do it, and we encourage them to do so.
Let me just say that I know Senator Barrasso just spoke with respect
to missile defense. I understand the legitimate concerns that have been
expressed by a number of colleagues about the question of missile
defense. I wish to make it as clear as possible, from all of the record
to date, that the treaty's preamble, first of all, requires nothing
legally whatsoever. There is no legal, binding effect of the preamble--
none whatsoever.
Secondly, Secretary Clinton said this and Secretary Henry Kissinger
said this: All it is is a statement of fact about the existence of a
relationship. It has no restraint whatsoever on our ability to proceed
with missile defense.
Moreover, the resolution of ratification could not be more clear
about that. There are pages within the resolution and several different
individual references to the fact that the missile defense is not
affected.
Let me read from it. This is from ``Understandings,'' and this is the
missile defense understanding No. 1:
It is the understanding of the United States--
This is what we will pass when we pass this, and I am quoting from
it--
that the New START Treaty does not impose any limitations on
the deployment of missile defenses other than the
requirements of paragraph 3 of Article V of the New START
Treaty, which states, ``Each Party shall not convert and
shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement
of missile defense interceptors therein. Each Party further
shall not convert and shall not use launchers of missile
defense interceptors for placement of ICBMs and SLBMs
therein.''
It goes on to say that any New START treaty limitations on the
deployment of missile defenses beyond those specifically contained--and
I will speak to what they are in a moment--would require an amendment
to the New START treaty. That would require an entire new process of
ratification in order to live up to the requirements of the treaty
process itself.
Now, the specific, tiny, little limitation they are talking about in
there is one that the Secretary of Defense said: We don't want; that
is, the conversion of a current ICBM silo. There are four of them that
are grandfathered into existence here, but the military has determined
it is more expensive to do that than to simply build a new silo for a
ground-based missile, which is what we plan to do in the event we want
to--when we deploy.
So there is, in effect, zero limitation. Every single member of the
Strategic Command and the current command has said there is no
limitation. Secretary Gates has said there is no limitation. And I
believe we will be able to have even some further clarification of the
absence of any limitation.
The fact is, if you change that preamble now, you are effectively
killing the treaty because it requires the President to go back to the
Russians, renegotiate the treaty, and then you have to come back and go
through months and months of hearings and resubmission and so forth.
The important thing to focus on is the fact that--and let me quote
Henry Kissinger about the language Senator Barrasso has referred to. He
said, ``It is a truism, it is not an obligation.''
Secretary Gates also emphasized the fact that it has no impact
whatsoever on the United States. Secretary Gates reminded us in May
that the Russians have always reacted adversely to our plans for
missile defense, so they have tried a number of times to try to
interrupt that.
Secretary Gates said in his testimony:
This treaty does not accomplish any restraint for them at
all.
He also said:
We have a comprehensive missile defense program, and we are
going forward with all of it.
In addition to that, General Chilton reported on how he informed the
Russians in full about exactly what program we were going forward with,
including the recently agreed on deployment at Lisbon for the
deployment of missile defense in Europe.
They understand exactly what we are doing, what our plans are, and,
notwithstanding that, they signed the treaty. So I think the comfort
level of all of our military, of all of those involved with the
laboratories, and all of those involved with the Strategic Command
ought to speak for itself.
I see Senator Ensign is here.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about this New
START treaty. I have some very serious concerns about it.
I appreciate the work that has been done by my colleagues. This is an
incredibly serious issue. I do not question anybody's motives, but I do
think there are some serious flaws that lie not only within the four
corners of the treaty text but also speak to the manner in which this
administration has dealt with Russia. This policy of Russian ``reset''
has meant that the United States is making major concessions, while our
Russian counterparts give up virtually nothing.
Further, I have serious reservations about the manner in which the
Senate is considering this treaty. This body, the Senate, is supposed
to be the most deliberative body in the world. It is supposed to be a
chamber that respects the rights of the minority. Senators are supposed
to be afforded the right of unlimited debate and the right to have
their amendments considered. Rushing a treaty of this magnitude through
a lameduck session is not what the Founders had in mind when they gave
this body the power of advice and consent in these serious matters.
The American people sent a clear message in November to concentrate
on jobs, taxes, and the economy.
While I do not think this lameduck is the time to debate this very
important treaty, I do plan on offering multiple amendments to address
this treaty's flaws, as well as the resolution of ratification. My
colleagues on both sides of
[[Page 22283]]
the aisle will also offer amendments with topics ranging from how this
treaty restrains our missile defense capabilities to ceding the
Senate's advice and consent power to the flawed Bilateral Consultative
Commission.
For example, there needs to be an amendment which addresses the
verification regime in this treaty, or lack thereof. Further, it is
astounding to me that tactical nuclear weapons were left out of the
treaty, considering that Russia has approximately a 10-to-1 advantage.
Additionally, we need to consider how the rail-mobile ICBMs are
counted, or not counted, and our Russian policy in a much broader
sense.
As the Senate moves forward in examining the intended consequences of
this treaty, we also need to pay careful attention to those
consequences that are unintended because that is where the danger truly
lies. In order to properly examine these, the administration needs to
provide the Senate with the full negotiating record which it has yet to
do. Only upon examination of this record can we accurately determine
how Russia views this accord to ensure that their understanding is the
same as ours.
On the topic of missile defense, this is clearly a case of the
administration wanting to have its cake and eat it too. There should be
zero--zero--mention of missile defense within 100 miles of this treaty.
Yet there it is, right in the preamble to New START, which clearly
recognizes an interrelationship between offensive nuclear weapons and
missile defense. I believe this is unacceptable.
Further, if we examine article 5, paragraph 3, of New START, missile
defense is again referenced, plain as day, in a provision prohibiting
the United States from converting ICBMs or sea-based launchers for
missile defense purposes. Where is the wisdom in removing such an
option from our toolkit for the whole life of the treaty? Russia must
understand that we will not limit our options for national defense
based on current plans, ideas, or technology. Should a breakthrough
occur in missile defense technology or launcher development we cannot
have already ruled out pursuing new courses of action.
In their attempts to persuade Republicans to support the treaty,
proponents have attempted to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. Let's
remember that over two decades ago, President Reagan returned from
Iceland and made the following statement:
While both sides seek reduction in the number of nuclear
missiles and warheads threatening the world, the Soviet Union
insisted that we sign an agreement that would deny me and
future presidents for 10 years the right to develop, test and
deploy a defense against nuclear missiles for the people of
the free world. This we could not and would not do.
This clearly states, in his own words, where Ronald Reagan would be
on this New START treaty. Another especially troublesome facet of the
New START is that it would establish a Bilateral Consultative
Commission with the authority to agree upon additional measures to
increase the effectiveness of the treaty. This seems like a broad and
vague purview for a commission, and it is unclear why the Senate would
delegate its advice and consent responsibilities to a commission. This
leads me to ask the question: Since missile defense has fallen under
the purview of this treaty, wouldn't it be logical that this commission
could make decisions as to what we can and cannot do with our missile
defense assets? We must make it clear this commission, the BCC, cannot
have the authority to further handicap our national defense as it could
otherwise do under this treaty without further scrutiny of the Senate.
I hope we agree as a body to insist that the workings of the BCC are
completely visible and accessible to the Senate and that we explicitly
make these changes to the treaty itself, not just the resolution of
ratification.
As we move forward in examining this treaty, a colleague of mine will
be sorely missed. The senior Senator from Missouri, Kit Bond, as vice
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the foremost
expert in the Senate and likely in all of Congress on matters of
intelligence. At least that is my opinion. I wish to quote my good
friend. The Select Committee on Intelligence has been looking at this
issue closely over the past several months.
As the vice chairman of this committee, I have reviewed the
key intelligence on our ability to monitor this treaty and
heard from our intelligence professionals. There is no doubt
in my mind that the United States cannot reliably verify the
treaty's 1,550 limit on deployed warheads. The administration
claims that New START is indispensable to reap the ``Reset''
benefits with Russia. If a fatally flawed arms control
agreement is the price of admission to the Reset game, our
Nation is better off if we sit this one out.
I could not agree more. It is naively optimistic to assume that a
world with fewer nuclear weapons is the same thing as a safer world.
Our security has long depended on a strong and flexible deterrent. New
threats are constantly emerging from every corner of the globe. This
has been recently demonstrated by Iran's resistance to denuclearization
and North Korea's increasingly violent saber rattling. The United
States must be able to rapidly adapt and respond to new threats to our
security. Now is the time for more flexible deterrent capability, not
less.
New START is riddled with U.S. concessions from which I can see
little gain. U.S. leadership in this arena will be measured by how well
we protect our ability to defend ourselves and our friends, not by how
quickly we agree to an imperfect treaty.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask my colleague from Nevada--he
mentioned he had some amendments, and we are ready to do amendments. Is
he prepared to go forward with his amendments?
Mr. ENSIGN. Let me check.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me speak to a couple points the
Senator from Nevada raised. He talked about the article V ban. I
discussed this a few minutes ago with respect to the conversion of ICBM
silo launchers. There is a one-paragraph restraint in the treaty with
respect to the conversion of those missile defense interceptors. The
Foreign Relations Committee, in the course of our hearings, pressed the
administration on this question very extensively. There were a lot of
questions asked by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The record
unequivocally counters the argument just made by the Senator from
Nevada. The ban does not prevent us from deploying the most effective
missile defenses possible. I will be specific.
We will soon have some 30 missile defense interceptors in silos in
California and Alaska. We are going to have an additional eight extra
launchers in Alaska, if we need them. If we need more interceptors, the
Missile Defense Agency Director, LTG Patrick O'Reilly, who was
originally appointed to that post in the administration of President
Bush, told the committee: ``For many different reasons,'' they would
``never'' recommend converting either ICBM silos or SLBM launchers into
missile defense interceptor launchers.
What we are hearing is a completely red herring argument, sort of
throw it out there and say that somehow this is a restraint on missile
defense. Why is it not a restraint? One reason is cost. It is
intriguing to me to hear a lot of colleagues raise this particular
missile defense issue in the treaty, when they also raise the issue of
the deficit and how much we are spending and how we should not be
spending on things people don't want and the military doesn't want.
Here is something the military doesn't want. They don't want it because
the conversion cost of the last ICBM launcher at Vandenberg into a
missile defense interceptor launcher was about $55 million.
The average cost for a new hardened missile defense interceptor silo
in a new missile field is $36 million. The reason for that is because
the Missile Defense Agency has developed a smaller, more effective,
special purpose silo to meet its needs.
The annual operating cost for a separate converted silo, which is
what our colleagues are complaining about, is actually $2 million
higher per silo, and it is $2 million higher than a silo which the
military thinks is more effective and less expensive to maintain. As
Strategic Command General Chilton
[[Page 22284]]
noted, we also don't want to force Russia to make a split-second guess
as to whether a missile that is flying out of a U.S. silo field is
either a missile defense interceptor which may be aimed at a rogue
missile or a nuclear-tipped missile aimed at Moscow. That confusion is
impossible to distinguish unless we have a completely separate silo
field. So converting an old ICBM silo in a particular field where we
can't distinguish between an interceptor or an ICBM actually increases
the potential of confusion and threat and possibly a dangerous mistake
and decision.
With regard to putting a missile defense interceptor in a submarine
launch tube, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen both said this is not a
cost-effective step, and it presents very unique operational
challenges. We need to take these red herrings off the table. Secretary
Gates and Admiral Mullen both noted it would make much more sense to
put missile defense interceptors on aegis-capable surface ships, which
is what they are doing, and that is not constrained by any treaty.
There is no constraint whatsoever in our ability to go out and do what
best meets the needs as defined by the military themselves.
The bottom line is, article V, paragraph 3 does not constrain us one
iota.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I plan to speak for about an hour for the
benefit of scheduling, although I will only scratch the surface of what
I will have to say about this treaty.
Let me begin by talking about 14 or 15 specific things I intend to
cover at some point when we have time during this debate and note that
there will be amendments proposed that deal with many of the items I am
going to be mentioning.
First, I think it is important for us to lay out what some of the
concerns are.
This morning when I talked about the fact that the Senate is going to
have to deal with the funding of the U.S. Government which expires on
midnight on Saturday, I noted the fact that the process the majority
leader has invoked, to dual-track or consider the START treaty along
with the Omnibus appropriations bill, is not a process that allows
adequate consideration of either, and the American people sent a signal
in the last election that they didn't want us to continue this wasteful
Washington spending spree we have been on. Yet the Omnibus
appropriations bill, which I am not sure I could lift, will do exactly
that.
We ought to be focused on a process by which that can actually be
considered with amendments. Under the way the majority leader has
outlined our schedule, that does not appear to be possible.
The first concern I have with respect to going to the START treaty at
this time is that we are putting the cart before the horse. Our first
job needs to be to ensure that the Federal Government doesn't run out
of money at midnight on Saturday. Yet the majority leader has turned to
the START treaty. Why? I think the obvious--at least one--answer is to
divert attention from this big pile of spending that I am pointing to,
6,700 earmarks. If we are talking about the START treaty, we are not
talking about the Omnibus appropriations bill. But the American people
are talking about government spending. That is what we should be
focusing our attention on.
The problem now is that we are on the START treaty, and those of us
who want to talk about this and want to amend it and believe we will be
denied the opportunity to do so will be accused of not wanting to talk
about the START treaty because that is what the majority leader has put
on the Senate floor. And he will say: Gee, you have had all this time
to talk about it. Why aren't you talking about it? That is part of what
is wrong with the process. That is one of the reasons I have been
saying you cannot do all these things and do them right.
In addition, the majority leader said this morning we have other
things he wants to consider before Christmas as well. There is no
earthly way to do all this within the time we have.
Let me mention some of the concerns I will be discussing with respect
to the START treaty. I think one thing you have to talk about, first of
all, is whether we are going to have sufficient time in order to do
what needs to be done to both amend the treaty as well as the
resolution of ratification and debate some of the issues, including the
issue that my colleague from Massachusetts was just talking about.
Secondly, what were the benefits of the treaty for the United States
vis-a-vis Russia? What were the concessions we made to Russia? What do
they get out of it? What do we get out of it? My own view is, they got
virtually everything out of it, and I do not know what we got out of
it, except for the President to say he made another arms control deal
with Russia.
Third, where will this treaty leave our nuclear forces, our delivery
vehicles, and our warheads in terms of the deterrent capability not
only for the United States but the 31 allies who rely on the U.S.
nuclear umbrella? We will have cut our forces to the bone. Yet,
interestingly, Russia will not be forced to make any reductions at all
in these delivery vehicles for the nuclear warheads.
Fourth--and there has been quite a bit of discussion in the media
about my work on modernization--where does the administration's
modernization plan end up relative to START? The point here is, if you
are going to bring your nuclear warheads down to a bare minimum number
or below that you have to make darn sure every single one of them is
safe, secure and reliable and they will do what they are supposed to do
and everybody needs to know that. But all the experts agree the
facilities we have for taking care of our warheads and maintaining them
are inadequate for that purpose, and they have to be modernized.
Is the process and the amount of money that has been set aside for
that adequate? I will discuss my views on that and the questions that
remain about critical funding for the modernization of both our nuclear
weapons and the complex necessary to sustain them.
Fifth is the administration's uncertain commitment to the nuclear
triad. This I find troubling because while they have committed to a
modernization program, they have not yet committed to a program for the
modernization of the three legs of the nuclear triad: the delivery
systems, the ICBM force, the bomber force, accompanied by cruise
missiles and our submarine force. I will be discussing the areas in
which I think the commitments in that regard are insufficient and
dangerous.
Probably most interesting to a lot of people in this country, and
certainly to a lot of our colleagues, is the question of what has
occurred with respect to the relinking of strategic offense and defense
capabilities. This is the missile defense concern. There is
significantly divergent views between the United States and Russia on
this question of what the treaty does or does not do with respect to
missile defense. Both explicitly and impliedly, there are limitations
on U.S. missile defense activities in the treaty.
On the one hand, the Department of Defense has said the United States
has plans for developing and deploying missile defense systems that
will have adequate capability against ICBMs coming, for example, from
Iran. If they have capability against those missiles, they also have
capability against Russian missiles.
On the other hand, the U.S. official policy statement that
accompanied the treaty and subsequent briefings from the State
Department assures the Russians that the United States will not deploy
defenses that are capable of undermining the Russian deterrent. That is
important because of the way the Russians interpret the preamble and
other features of the treaty.
Misunderstanding and conflict between the parties is thus built into
the treaty if the United States intends to deploy more capable missiles
either to defend Europe or the United States, which it is our stated
policy to do. So are we to believe the administration will ever put
this treaty at risk over future missile defense plans? That is a
subject we will be exploring in-depth.
[[Page 22285]]
Seventh, the Senate gave advice to the administration not to limit
missile defense or conventional prompt global strike, which is a
capability that would permit us to deliver over long ranges,
intercontinental ranges, a warhead that is not a nuclear warhead,
something which this administration and I think are very important for
our future ability to deal with rogue states, for example.
Nevertheless, contrary to Congress's instructions, the administration
has subjected advanced U.S. conventional military capabilities to
limitations in this treaty, and we will discuss that.
Eight is something else. There are people who say there is nothing
that stands between us and a nuclear-free world. It is called zero
nuclear, the President's stated goal of a world without nuclear
weapons. Some say this treaty needs to be adopted, ratified in order to
permit us then to take the next step, which is to achieve that great
goal. I submit that goal is neither feasible nor desirable, and that to
the extent this treaty is deemed as a stepping stone toward that, it is
a bad step to take.
Moreover, it is an unwelcome distraction from addressing the true
nuclear dangers the President has made very clear are his top
priorities; that is, the dangers of proliferation and terrorism.
Ninth is a question about verification, something Senator Bond has
talked a great deal about and I am going to be speaking some about
because of issues that arose during my trip with Senator Feinstein to
Geneva during the time our negotiators were working on this treaty with
their Russian counterparts.
It is very clear that with lower force levels, we need better
verification. But this New START treaty has substantially weaker
verification provisions than its predecessor, START I. Of course,
Russia has a history of cheating on every arms control treaty we have
ever entered into with them, which amplifies the concern.
There are some comparisons, and I would suggest they are false
comparisons, to the SORT treaty, which is the 2002 treaty. It is called
the Moscow Treaty; that is, the treaty that deals with our strategic
offensive weapons after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the
Soviet Union, and the determination by the United States and Russia
both to simply bring down our nuclear forces. We did not need anymore
the nuclear forces that existed during the Cold War.
There are some false comparisons there that I think are very
important for us to talk about as it relates to this treaty before us.
I think we also need to talk about the New START and Russian reset. I
will talk about that a little bit when I begin discussing the reasons
for trying to act so quickly here. But I think it also requires some
further discussion because, frankly, Russia is threatening a new arms
race if the Senate does not ratify this treaty. Is that the reset the
President is so fond of talking about, this new wonderful relationship
with the Russian Federation?
Twelfth, I think we need to talk about tactical nuclear weapons. The
treaty did not deal with tactical nuclear weapons, and respected
Members of this body, including the Vice President of the United
States, then a Senator, made clear that after the last treaty the next
item on the agenda had to be to deal with tactical nuclear weapons. It
should have been, but it was not done here.
Thirteenth--and this deals with some of the amendments that are going
to be necessary--there is a Commission in here that somewhat like
previous treaty commissions--it is called the Bilateral Consultative
Commission--and the treaty delegates to this Commission the ability,
even in secret, to modify terms of the treaty--a group of Russians and
a group of U.S. negotiators. There is some reference in the committee's
resolution of ratification, but, in my view, it is inadequate for the
Senate to be able to react in time to notification by that Commission
of things it is intending to do in time for the Senate to provide its
advice and consent, if those are necessary.
Then, as I mentioned, it is also important for us to determine how
this treaty is distracting attention from what the President has said,
and I agree, is our top priority; that is, dealing with proliferation
and terrorism. This treaty does not do anything to advance our goals in
that respect, and I think it would be much better if we could have
spent part of the last 2 years better focusing on the illegal nuclear
weapons programs of Iran and North Korea and why that should be our top
agenda item right now.
Those are some of the things I am going to be talking about. I will
not have time to deal with all of them during this first hour. But let
me at least briefly talk about the question of adequate time. I do not
think Senators are quite aware of some of the procedures that exist
with respect to treaty ratification. Because of precedent in the
Senate, when cloture is filed, it will close off debate both on
amendments to the treaty and the preamble, as well as amendments to the
resolution of ratification.
I think it is important to note there are amendments that Members, at
least on our side, have that go both to the treaty and preamble and
also amendments that deal with the resolution of ratification. In fact,
I think there are many more that deal with the latter subject. We are
going to have to be able to deal with both of those subject matters. So
when Members talk about filing cloture, I think it is important to
realize that would cut off debate on every additional change, even if
we have not been able to complete work on the amendments to the
resolution of ratification.
Also, I think it should be clear that there have been numerous
letters sent to our leadership in the Senate and to the committee
leadership from Republican Members of the Foreign Relations Committee,
other Republican Senators, the 10 Republican Senators- elect,
Representatives from the House Armed Services Committee, and others,
indicating this is not the appropriate time or way to deal with this
treaty.
Incidentally, I happened to be watching Chris Matthews the other
night--a television program--and Lawrence Eagleburger, one of the
people who support the treaty, was asked by Matthews what the fuss was
about getting it done now and, among other things, this is what
Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, said:
They want to do it before these lame duckers are out there.
That's not the way to move on this issue.
I agree with that. There are a lot of serious things to consider, and
the rush to do all the business this lameduck session has is not the
best way to get that done.
The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday expressed
the view that we had plenty of time to do this, comparing the work we
have here to the START I treaty. The START I treaty is the predecessor
to this New START treaty, though there was the intervening 2002 Moscow
Treaty I mentioned before. But just to make two quick points on this:
When we dealt with START I, we did not have all the competing
considerations, the dual tracking with an Omnibus appropriations bill
and the votes we are going to have to take on that, as well as the
other items the majority leader has mentioned. Secondly, if we are to
talk about an analogous treaty, the START treaty was not considered by
the Senate until September of 1992, and the analogy would be that this
treaty before us now would be appropriate to bring to the Senate next
May, May of 2011. That is how much time elapsed between the two.
I am not suggesting we need that much more time, but I am simply
pointing out the fact that it is not analogous. Probably a better
analogy would be the INF Treaty. That is a treaty that took the Senate
9 days of floor time. We had no intervening business of any kind. There
were 20 votes on amendments and plenty of time to work out
consideration of other amendments.
So the idea that, well, some treaties have not taken that long,
therefore, why can't we do this one, is a specious argument, and I
think when we see the serious issues that need to be considered, our
colleagues will appreciate the
[[Page 22286]]
need to take adequate time on this agreement.
One of the curious arguments is, we have to do this quickly because
the verification provisions of the predecessor START I treaty have
lapsed and, as a result, we have a situation that is untenable. As a
matter of fact, Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary, believing that the
Senate yesterday was reading the treaty, which did not happen,
nevertheless put out a statement, obviously prematurely, and one of the
things he said was:
Every minute that the START Treaty is being read on the
Senate floor increases the time that we lack verification of
Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Well, apart from the fact that he was wrong about the reading of the
treaty, he is also wrong about the urgency because of the lack of
verification of the Russians. First of all, I am confused by the two
main arguments to support the treaty.
No. 1, we have this wonderful relationship with the Russians that has
been reset and we are cooperating on all of these things. By the way,
we can't trust those guys so we quickly have to put these verification
measures in place. There is something that doesn't quite connect there
as far as I am concerned.
But I go back to why we don't have verification right now. This story
reminds me a little bit about the trial of a fellow who killed both of
his parents and then pled for mercy from the court because he was an
orphan. This problem of verification was created by the administration.
It has nothing to do with action by the Senate, and they have nothing
but themselves to blame for whatever verification procedures are not in
place.
How did that come about? Well, the START treaty had perfectly good
verification provisions in it that could have been continued for
another 5 years if the United States had taken the view with Russia
that that is what we should do. But the administration said, no, we are
going to deliver the START treaty on time so there won't be any hiatus
there, so we don't need to continue the verification provisions of
START I.
Here is what was said in a joint statement between President Barack
Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation, on
April 1 of 2009:
The United States and the Russian Federation intend to
conclude this agreement before the treaty expires in
December.
Originally, we had nothing to worry about because the new treaty
would be done by then. It soon became evident that wasn't going to
happen, the negotiations were dragging, and the treaty would expire.
Did this administration decide to try to continue the existing treaty--
which it could have done? It just takes the United States and Russia
agreeing to do it, no Senate action required. No, it didn't do that.
Several of us began to express concerns about this. The Republican
ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee even
introduced legislation to provide the necessary legal framework for
verification to continue even though the two treaties had lapsed, and I
cosponsored that legislation. The administration said, well, what we
are going to do is get a bridging agreement with Russia that will
bridge the time between the time START lapses and the time the new
treaty is ratified.
Michael McFaul, the NSC adviser for Russia, in a press briefing on
November 15 of 2009 made that point. He said:
It does expire on December 5 and in parallel, we have a
bridging agreement that we are also working on with the
Russians, so there is no interruption. The key thing here is
verification. We just want to preserve the verification.
So that was the intention. Those of us who expressed concerns about
this were at least, I think, somewhat mollified, except that when I
went to Geneva, what we found was there had been no conversations
whatsoever, and it appeared to me--I came back to the floor and
actually called it malpractice--that our negotiators and the Russian
negotiators had not thought about, let alone begun, to negotiate what
kind of agreement would be put in place in the event the treaty expired
and nothing else was in place to provide for verification. But at least
they promised we would have this bridging agreement.
Then the administration said--when the treaty was signed and the two
Presidents spoke to the issue--that we would continue in the spirit of
the previous treaty so there would be no difference in action between
the two countries in whatever time period it took for the ratification
of the treaty to occur by the two countries' bodies. This is a
quotation from the statement of Presidents Medvedev and Obama:
We express our commitment as a matter of principle to
continue to work together in the spirit of the START Treaty
following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to
ensure that a New START Treaty and strategic arms enter into
force at the earliest possible date.
It is a complete mystery as to what happened. What happened to the
bridging agreement? What happened to this spirit of cooperation we were
going to continue in the spirit of the previous treaty? We are now told
it is an absolute emergency for the Senate to hurry up and ratify this
treaty because the Russians might cheat. Nobody has explained what
happened here and nobody has explained why it was important before, but
it never got done, and now we have the emergency.
There were documents that trickled in over time, but one of the
things we have asked for to try to explain what happened and what this
spirit is that the Presidents both talked about was the negotiating
record. We have absolutely been denied access to that negotiating
record. The Russians know what we said and what they said. The State
Department knows what we said and what they said, but Senators who are
asked to give their advice and consent can't be trusted, I guess, to
know what was said between the Russian and U.S. negotiators.
Numerous officials of the administration have said there is an
urgency to ratify the treaty because we lack verification measures with
Russia. That was the statement Senator Clinton made back in August and
others have said the same thing. Of course, we do have some
verification, but I don't want to get into in open session the national
technical means we have. We can discuss that in executive session.
But apart from the mystery about this bridging agreement and the
commitment of the two Presidents, this urgency is irrational if we are
to believe that we really reset this relationship with Russia. In fact,
administration officials have actually denied that the emergency
exists, a point that has been made by others. Gary Samore, who is
special assistant to the President, said:
I am not particularly worried near term, but over time as
the Russians are modernizing their systems and starting to
deploy new systems, the lack of inspections will create much
more uncertainty.
Absolutely true. I agree with that. But he is not worried in the near
term; that is to say, within the next few months.
The Washington Post I thought put it well. In an editorial they said:
But no calamity will befall the United States if the Senate
does not act this year. The Cold War threat of the nuclear
exchange between Washington and Moscow is, for now, almost
nonexistent.
So I don't think it is a valid argument to rush this treaty through
in the week before Christmas, that somehow this is an urgent need and
that our national security is threatened if we don't do that. I also
reject the argument that the only choice for us is this treaty or no
treaty. Obviously, there are other choices. When it comes to
verification, both countries have the ability to have agreements with
each other that provide for the kind of inspection regimes that would
be appropriate.
Let me conclude at this point. Ian Kelly, who is a State Department
spokesman, made a comment that I think sums it up. He said:
Both sides pledge not to take any measures that would
undermine the strategic stability that the START has provided
during this period between the expiration of the START treaty
and entering into the force of the new treaty, which will
take some months.
He is right. But I think the argument that the Senate has to act
now--right now--or else our national security is going to be
jeopardized by lack of verification is specious, and it certainly
[[Page 22287]]
raises questions if we are to examine what the real basis is and what
the result of this new reset relationship with Russia is. That is the
argument: We have to do this now, because otherwise we won't be able to
verify what the Russians are doing. The other argument is that we reset
our relationship with Russia and, therefore, if we don't do this, it
will make the Russians mad and they will not continue to cooperate with
us on important matters they have cooperated with us on. I think it is
important to both examine that allegation as well as the question of
what the two countries got out of this treaty.
Let me speak for a moment about what the Russians got out of the
treaty and what the United States purportedly gets out of the treaty,
most of it characterized in this reset language. Russian politician
Sergei Kurginyan said:
Russia could not have an easier partner on the topic of
nuclear arms than Obama.
He is referring to President Obama.
What exactly did the Russians get out of this? Some said, Well, even
though they are no longer a powerful nation they need the superpower
status, and entering into a treaty such as this, such as the kinds of
treaties that used to be entered into during the Cold War, gives them a
feeling of superpower status along with the United States. So it is
important for us to do that. First of all, I am not sure you treat a
serious reset partner that way, but apart from that, obviously, the
Russians felt that if they could negotiate a good treaty with the
United States, it would be to their benefit, and I don't question their
intentions in doing that.
But what we got out of this in terms of the primary feature of the
treaty is to reduce the nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles. The
delivery vehicles are the most important thing, in my view. But only
the United States reduces its strategic delivery vehicles under this
New START treaty. The Russians don't. They currently have about 560
delivery vehicles. These are ICBMs, bomber capability, and submarine
capability. The United States has 856. The treaty takes you down to 700
of deployed delivery vehicles. So even under the treaty, Russia can
build up to that level by adding 140 launchers they don't currently
have, while the United States must cut our forces by 156. One says,
Well, why shouldn't it be exactly equal? The United States has
obligations beyond those of Russia. Russia has a need to defend its
territory. The United States has 31 other countries relying on the U.S.
nuclear umbrella. Therefore, the targets we must hold at risk and the
concerns we have about adequate delivery vehicles are much different
than Russia's. Nonetheless, we have agreed to a parity number here of
700. So they can build up to that number; we have to build down. That
is not exactly a great victory, in my view. In fact, it is the first
time since the very disastrous Washington naval treaties with Germany
and Japan before World War II that the United States has agreed to one-
sided reductions in military might.
I mentioned the bridging agreement before. Where that fell through
the cracks, I don't know. The administration was apparently pushing for
it. It didn't get it. We still don't know what happened because we
haven't been given the record.
On mobile missiles, this is a matter that exercised the Russians when
the committee dealt with it in a very modest way in its resolution of
ratification. You see, the Russians have had rail mobile missile plans
and don't know exactly what they are going to do in the future with
rail mobile, but when the committee deigned to speak to this, the
Russians reacted like a scalded dog: Well, we recommend the Duma not
approve the treaty if we are going to be talking about rail mobile
missiles. What about the United States in contention? We shouldn't be
talking about U.S. missile defense. No, that is OK, but we don't want
to talk about rail mobile missiles. So the Russians successfully
prevented any revisions on that and there is maybe a concern now that
we made a mistake in not including that. Obviously, the concession
makes it much harder to monitor their forces if they go with rail
mobile forces.
In addition, we limited the monitors of missile production at
Votkinsk. Votkinsk was the missile production facility in Russia that
produced many of the missiles the Russians used and this was required
by the START I treaty. The Russians didn't want this anymore. I can
understand why. If we are going to understand what they are producing
in their factory and see what happens when they roll them outside the
factory, then we will have a better idea of whether they are cheating.
The Russians said from the very beginning, We are not going to let you
do that anymore. So they got something very important with regard to
verification. Again, the argument is we have to do verification.
Understand that verification in this treaty is much weaker than the
verification that existed under START I and that could have been
continued for another 5 years if the administration had taken that
position.
Very troublesome is a reverse in course by the United States and
Russia both with regard to MIRVing of ICBMs. We have been working
against MIRVing for a long time and finally achieved in the last treaty
a recognition of the fact that MIRVed missiles; that is to say,
missiles that have numerous warheads on top, are very destabilizing
because it creates a situation where you basically have to use them or
you lose them. If we attack a missile silo and kill eight warheads all
at once with one strike, that is a major loss. So the idea is that
strategic offensive weapons with those MIRVs on them need to get off
before they are hit by an incoming missile. Very destabilizing.
So both countries agreed we would move toward a single warhead
missile. Well, in this treaty, that all goes by the boards. The United
States is going to continue to provide for single warheads, but not
Russia. In fact, it is believed that 80 percent of the Russian ICBM
force in the future will consist of MIRVed ICBMs. I don't know why the
administration walked back from that. Again, we don't know because we
don't have the negotiating record.
The SLCM is the submerged launch cruise missile. Now, the START I
treaty had a side agreement that limited submerged launch cruise
missiles. But this new START treaty ends that side agreement and says
even though the United States is retiring our submerged launch cruise
missiles, as we intended to do under START I, it appears that Russia is
developing a new version of such a missile, with a range of up to
approximately 5,000 kilometers, which is a longer range than some
ballistic missiles covered by the treaty.
Again, why do we allow a relinkage of a subject as important to us as
missile defense with strategic arms limitations and yet not limit rail
mobile, SLCMs, and so on? It is a very lopsided result in the
negotiations, it seems to me.
I mentioned missile defense. Russia not only achieved a recognition
of its position that missile defense is related to strategic offensive
systems in the preamble of this treaty, but it negotiated limitations
on U.S. missile defense in article V. Importantly, it added some what I
will call ``bullying'' language in the unilateral statement
accompanying the treaty. These achievements came after the U.S. gave
away ground-based European systems and promised the Senate there would
be no treaty limitations on defensive missiles.
Missile defense targets is another area in which the U.S. gave
ground. There is ambiguous treaty language which I believe will
constrain U.S. ability to maximize the affordability of our missile
defense targets. We are not going to be able to reuse old targets.
Telemetry is a big issue the U.S. fought hard on but apparently caved
on. We don't have the record, so we don't know what kind of quid pro
quo could have been gotten for this. Under START I, one of the most
valuable collection methods was the unencrypted telemetry from missile
tests by the Russians. They got that from our missile tests. We both
knew the capability
[[Page 22288]]
of each other's missiles. In a sense, that is stabilizing. But under
New START, which is supposed to be improving the situation with regard
to certainty, unencrypted data from almost every ballistic missile
flight will be not subject to sharing with the other side. At best,
five flights a year will be shared. But Russia can choose to never
share flight test data from new missiles they are currently developing
and testing. They can say here is data from five tests of old missiles,
but they don't have to share data as to any of their new missiles. None
of our intelligence people will tell you that is an improvement or a
good situation.
Here is another disparity in the treaty: conventional prompt global
strike. Remember I mentioned the Russian potential plans for rail
mobile or cruise missile submarine launch. I think the United States
has a very good idea about moving forward with something we call
conventional prompt global strike. It is not even a nuclear program. It
is a sensible way to deal with some of the emerging threats around the
world today, where we may have a need, in a very quick time and over a
long distance, to send a conventional warhead to a country. We may not
want to have to send a nuclear warhead--Heaven knows what that would
start--but it makes sense to have a conventional capability to do this.
The Russians have fought that. It is a little unclear why, since it
would totally be aimed at other countries, certainly not Russia. In a
treaty nominally about nuclear weapons, we have a specific limitation
on the U.S. plans for conventional prompt global strike. It would limit
the capability we are seeking to address WMD and terrorist threats by
requiring that any such missiles be counted against the already-too-low
limit of 700 missiles for delivery of nuclear warheads.
Let's say we were going to deploy 24 of these missiles--to decide a
number. That means you have to reduce the 700 by 24. That provides a
huge disincentive to deploying these conventional prompt global strike
missiles and a dangerous reduction from a negotiated 700 launcher limit
in the treaty.
I am not going to get deeply into inspections and verifications. That
will have to be dealt with in executive closed session where we can
discuss classified matters. Suffice it to say here, in discussing the
disparity between what the Russians got and what we got, in a number of
inspections this new treaty cuts the number of inspections by more than
half compared to START I.
Part of the problem is that none of the inspections that are
permitted will ever enable us to have a good sense of the total number
of warheads. So that is different from the START I treaty. We are never
going to be able to monitor, under this treaty, whether the Russians
are complying with the overall limit on warheads. Again, we will have
to get more into that in executive session.
I talked about tactical nukes. I mentioned the fact that when he was
a Senator, Vice President Biden made remarks during ratification of the
2002 Moscow Treaty. He said:
After entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, getting a
handle on Russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms
control and nonproliferation objective of the United States
Government.
Well, here it is 8 years later, and not only is there no further
progress toward that--and I agree with the Vice President--but this
treaty, at the insistence of the Russians, has not one word about
tactical nuclear weapons. I will be discussing that in more detail
later on. I just mention it here to illustrate yet another area where
it seems to me there is a great disparity.
I didn't count up all of these things, but there have to be 10 or 12
areas in which the Russians have gotten very much what they bargained
for. The question is, What did we get?
We are told that we benefit for the following reasons: We can resume
inspections in Russia. As I said, we could have done that by extending
the START I treaty. That is a problem of our own making. By allowing
that to expire and not renewing or putting into place a bridging
agreement or enforcing the joint statement the two Presidents put
together in working together in the spirit of START I, the inspections
are significantly weaker, as I said.
I will quote Senator Bond. He said:
The administration's new START Treaty has been oversold and
overhyped. If we cannot verify that the Russians are
complying with each of the treaty's three central limits,
then we have no way of knowing whether we are more secure or
not. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States
cannot reliably verify the treaty's 1,550 limit on deployed
warheads.
Senator Bond is exactly right. We will discuss some of that in open
session and the rest of it in closed session.
I will conclude this point by noting that the Vice President and
others have also suggested that this treaty is important for the United
States because it is a valuable part of the so-called reset
relationship with the Russians.
I have to ask several questions about this. Why have we assumed this
has been such a great success?
My colleague, Senator Durbin, for example, stated a couple of weeks
ago that we need Russia's help in dealing with Iran because that nation
is about to bring online a new nuclear powerplant. I remind everybody
that Russia built and fueled that powerplant for Iran. So that is a
great benefit to this reset relationship.
We will have more to say about that as well. I will conclude this
part by quoting from Dr. Henry Kissinger, who believes the treaty
should be ratified. He said:
The argument for this treaty is not to placate Russia. That
is not the reason to approve this treaty. Under no condition
should a treaty be made as a favor to another country, or to
make another country feel better. It has to be perceived to
be in the American national interest.
So what are the two big arguments for the treaty? We have to get this
verification regime in place because the Russians may cheat. Well, I
guess they are our new best friends and we have to keep it that way or
else they will get mad. Dr. Kissinger wrote before about this matter of
what should motivate us to do an arms control treaty. He said every
arms control treaty has to be justified within its own four corners.
You can never say a reason to do it is to make the other country feel
better or to gain some kind of leverage with the other country or to
gain its cooperation in some way. A, it is illegitimate; and, B, it
doesn't work. He made that point precisely with respect to this. He is
saying that is not a reason to endorse this treaty.
I conclude that the two big arguments are not arguments at all, and,
in point of fact, the Russians got a lot more out of this treaty than
the United States ever would.
I spoke a little bit about the treaty limits because this is the
central idea of the treaty--to reduce the number of warheads and
delivery vehicles. I wanted to discuss that in this context because
there are a lot of people who believe--and I certainly understand the
argument--that it seems like a good idea if both countries are reducing
nuclear weapons forces and warheads. That was exactly the theory under
the Moscow Treaty of 2002. We didn't need that many warheads and
delivery vehicles.
The United States said: We are just going to reduce ours; and Russia
said: We have to reduce ours, too, so why don't we have a treaty. The
United States said: We can have one, but we don't need one; we are
going to do this out of our own best interests because it costs a lot
of money. As a favor to Russia, we said: If you want to do a treaty,
fine, but we will not make any concessions to do it.
Now we are cutting into the bone and getting the level of delivery
vehicles down to 700 could jeopardize our ability to carry out our
missions. That is my assertion. There are experts in the administration
who have briefed us, who can show exactly where the targets are, where
our missiles are, how many we would need, and so on. They say actually
we still have enough to do the job.
I am willing to accept their, first of all, patriotic motivations,
expertise, and judgment on this issue. But I also note that when you
read all of the
[[Page 22289]]
statements that all of them made, they appreciate that this is it--this
is the limit beyond which we don't dare go. It rests upon several
assumptions, including the assumptions that the Russians are never
going to break out or cheat. It rests on the assumption that we don't
have new targets that we have to worry about.
I suggest, especially with respect to the Chinese development and
modernization of its nuclear force, and the role it is beginning to
play in the world militarily, it is not necessarily a valid assumption
that the targets that existed during the Cold War are all that we will
ever have to worry about.
Let me talk briefly about this matter of how we have brought down the
number of warheads and missiles, and why it is not necessarily the
great thing that the proponents are cracking it up to be. The first
point I will reiterate: We did all the giving; they did the taking. We
have to reduce the number of our delivery vehicles, and they can
actually build up theirs.
At the signing of the treaty, Russia had a total of 640 strategic
delivery vehicles, with only 571 of them deployed. That is according to
the Moscow defense briefing in 2010 about their missiles and delivery
vehicles. Aleksey Arbatov, a former deputy chairman of the Duma Defense
Committee said:
The new treaty is an agreement reducing the American and
not the Russian strategic nuclear forces. In fact, the latter
will be reduced in any case because of the mass removal from
the order of battle of obsolete arms and the one-time
introduction of new systems.
We believe his statement is correct. I am worried that we have gotten
very close to the line. Nothing has changed since 2008 except that the
Chinese have been working hard at their modernization. That is when the
Bush administration testified that the current level--the levels we
have today, not the levels we are going down to--were necessary for
deterrence.
I could quote from Secretary Bodman and Secretary Gates who spoke to
that issue in September of 2008 to make that point. General Cartwright,
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who supports the treaty, testified
that in 2009 he would be concerned about having fewer than 800 delivery
vehicles. I am quoting:
From about 1,100 down to about 500--500 being principally
where the Russians would like to be, and 1,100 being
principally where we would like to be, now the negotiation
starts. I would be very concerned if we got down below those
levels, about midpoint.
Secretary Schlesinger said:
As to the stated context of strategic nuclear weapons, the
numbers specified are adequate, though barely so.
Those are the views of experts.
Dr. Kissinger, who testified in support of the treaty, said this:
[T]he numbers of American and Russian strategic warheads
and delivery systems have been radically reduced and are
approaching levels where the arsenals of other countries will
bear on a strategic balance, as will tactical nuclear
weapons, particularly given the great asymmetry in their
numbers in Russia's favor.
There are two things he is talking about. First, as Russia and the
United States bring our forces down, there is a certain point--I am not
suggesting we are there yet, but there is a certain point that
countries, such as China, for example, can say: Wait a minute, there is
now not that much difference between where Russia and China are--Russia
and the United States are and where we are, and therefore, if we just
build ours up somewhat, we can be at virtual parity with Russia and the
United States, and, voila, instead of having two powers with a large
number of nuclear warheads, you then have three. So there is an
incentive for countries like that to build up once we get down to a
certain point.
The other point he makes is with respect to tactical weapons.
Tactical does not really relate to the amount of boom the weapon makes,
its destructive capabilities, so much as the delivery vehicle it is on.
The Russians have a significant advantage in that, as Secretary
Kissinger pointed out. So there is an asymmetry that exists both with
respect to warheads and delivery vehicles.
General Chilton, when he talked about support for New START,
predicated it on no Russian cheating or changes in the geopolitical
environment. I would like to read his quotation. He said:
It was decided . . . we would just fix that [Presidential
guidance] for our analysis of the force structure for the
START negotiations. And so that's how we moved forward. . . .
The only assumptions we had to make with regard to the new
NPR, which was, of course, in development in parallel at the
time [with the START treaty] was that there would be no
request for increase in forces. And there was also an
assumption that I think is valid, and that is that the
Russians in the post-negotiation time period would be
compliant with the treaty.
He assumes they are going to be, in other words. But those are the
two assumptions on which we had to base a reduction down to this level.
I think Senators should ask themselves whether they agree with these
assessments in light of the facts that Russia does continue to
modernize its force, as does China; that more nuclear forces in those
countries necessarily means more potential targets for the United
States to hold at risk; and that Russia has violated practically every
arms control treaty it signed with the United States; and taking into
account what hangs in the balance--the commitment of the United States
not only to our 31 allies and the nuclear umbrella we have but also the
protection of the United States with our nuclear deterrent. We have
little to gain and much to lose if we can't be certain the numbers in
New START are adequate.
Let me conclude this point by talking about some counting rules. This
is a little esoteric and gets down into the weeds, but it is important
to understand in the context of what I am talking about.
Under the treaty, strategic stability may be weakened because there
is not a specified loadout of reentry vehicles per missile. That is
what we used to have. The counting rules in the treaty present
opportunities for allowable cheating that the United States is not
likely to pursue--in fact, I would say we will not pursue--but which
could give Russia an advantage.
While the United States improves stability in our ICBM force by
eliminating the MIRVing I talked about before, Russia will become more
reliant on MIRVed ICBMs, and, again, that is destabilizing because it
encourages first-strike planning for fixed silo weapons--the ``use it
or lose it'' problem.
The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said:
The United States will ``de-MIRV'' the Minuteman III ICBM
force to a single warhead to enhance the stability of the
nuclear balance.
So why would we, then, encourage the Russians to go exactly the
opposite direction in this treaty?
Let me quote again. This is from a Russian forces blog, November 30,
2010:
The commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces, Lt.-General
Sergei Karakayev, announced today that all new mobile Topol-M
missiles will carry multiple warheads. This modification of
the missile is officially known as the Yars or RS-24. The
first three RS-24 missiles were deployed in Teykovo earlier
this year.
That is what I was referring to before, and that promotes strategic
instability, not stability.
Finally, due to the bomber accounting rules, at least one Russian
military commentator has noted:
Under the treaty, one nuclear warhead will be counted for
each deployed heavy bomber which can carry 12 to 234 missiles
or bombs depending on its type. Consequently, Russia will
retain 2,100 warheads.
Might I inquire how close I am to using the 60 minutes I had intended
to speak?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has about 10 minutes
remaining on the hour he asked for, but there is no time limit.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate that there is no time limit on my speaking and
I appreciate there is no time limit on my time, but I have an
engagement at noon and, second, I did not want to be out here on the
floor talking for too long.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I wish to ask the Senator, if I can--I don't want to
interrupt him, but I wanted to inquire, get a sense here--I appreciate
a lot of the comments he has made. First of all, let
[[Page 22290]]
me say that I have appreciated working very closely with Senator Kyl on
this for months now. We have had an enormous amount of dialog; we have
had a lot of meetings; we have gone back and forth. I think he would
agree that we have tried very hard and in good faith to address many of
the concerns he has raised, notwithstanding the ones he just raised in
his speech, many of which I will speak to as we go along.
But I would like to sort of get a sense from him. He mentioned
amendments, others have, but we are now almost at lunchtime, and we
don't have an amendment. I would like to get a sense of when we might
anticipate really being able to do the business on the treaty.
Mr. KYL. I will be happy to respond. Part of the business of the
Senate on the treaty is to expose its flaws and to have a robust debate
about those flaws, which can provide the foundation for amendments
which we intend to offer.
I was struck by the seriousness and importance, at least in my mind,
of the two-page list of amendments my staff acquired from colleagues.
As my colleague knows, we actually shared a list of 10 or 12 amendments
that I had thought about, and actually some of my colleagues--in fact,
we had a couple-of-hour conversation about that one morning to see if
we could reach agreement on any of them, which we were not able to do.
But there are some very serious amendments, most of which go to the
resolution of ratification, and a few go to the treaty or the preamble
itself.
I note that yesterday my colleague said--I think I am quoting him
correctly--``Make no mistake, we will not allow an amendment to the
treaty or the preamble.'' Maybe there are the votes to not allow that.
But I do think it is important for us, in this discussion, before
offering such an amendment, to appreciate why we believe such an
amendment would be important.
As my colleague well knows, there is a great deal that can be said
about this. I am trying to say it in as succinct a form as I can.
Mr. KERRY. I appreciate it.
Mr. KYL. But there is a great deal of discussion that needs to occur
for a predicate for the amendments we intend to offer.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I completely respect what the Senator
from Arizona has just said, and we obviously want to give him time to
lay any predicate to whatever he may perceive to be a flaw. For
instance, as he raises the question about the MIRVing, as he just did--
and later, I will go through each of these points--but the fact is, the
reason the Russians are MIRVing--which we all understand, and there are
plenty of letters from the Strategic Command and elsewhere that will
articulate the way in which they do not see that as a threat--the
reason they MIRV is because they cannot afford to do some of the other
things with respect to the numbers of missiles, so they put more
warheads on one missile.
We have preserved a very significant breakout capacity here. As
General Chilton and others will point out, it is not a flaw at all. It
is actually an advantage which is maintained in this treaty for the
American strategic posture. I will go into that later. What the Senator
describes as a flaw from his point of view I think the record will well
state is sort of a preserved American advantage.
That said, I respect, obviously--we want to get this joined. I think
what the Senator has just laid out is very helpful. It will help us
join the debate. But I do want to impress that the sooner we can get to
some of these amendments, the more we can really discover whether
something is, in fact, a flaw or is not a flaw and has been adequately
answered.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate my colleague's comment. I note that I think the
reason the Russians are going to MIRVing is--at least the primary
reason is exactly as Senator Kerry has stated. They have financial
limitations on what they can do here, but I don't think one can deny
that the result of it is strategic instability compared to moving
toward a single warhead missile, such as the United States has been
doing and will continue to do.
What I wanted to do in this segment of my remarks before I conclude--
and I will advise my colleagues that the next thing I intend to be
talking about is the administration's commitment to the nuclear triad,
but I don't think I am going to have time to get to that. I would like
to conclude now with some comments about modernization.
It has been well known that I have been involved in negotiations with
the administration regarding modernization. My colleague and friend,
Senator Kerry, has been very helpful, I might say, in occasionally
restarting those conversations when they got bogged down a little bit
and was helpful--and I specifically have complimented him before and
will do it again--in ensuring that the President's increase in the
budget for our nuclear modernization program that was in his budget
this year will actually be carried out in the funding the Congress
does. We had to do a continuing resolution back in September, and I
think it was largely due to Senator Kerry's efforts that that funding
was included.
I just note that we have had a lot of concern back and forth about
whether there is a real commitment to get that done over the years.
Obviously, both of us appreciate the fact that no one can guarantee
anything, but there is a certain amount of good will and commitment
involved here, and certainly the administration needs to be very
actively involved in ensuring that the funding required for its
modernization program actually comes to pass.
I note that the continuing resolution as passed by the House of
Representatives unfortunately conditioned this funding Senator Kerry
and I were responsible for--conditioned it on the ratification of the
START treaty, saying: If you don't ratify the treaty, you are not going
to get the money. Thankfully, a couple of administration officials
relatively quickly pushed back on that and said: No, that is not right.
The treaty stands on its own, and the modernization program stands on
its own, and this funding is necessary.
That is the kind of pushback on what might otherwise be rather petty
politics that is going to be required by all of us who understand that
modernization is critical in the future.
With that belief predicate, let me state what the problem has been
and generally how we went about trying to correct or solve the problem.
The United States, believe it or not--and this is the fault of
Republican and Democratic administrations and Republican and Democratic
Members of Congress--it is a negligence, I would say a gross negligence
on all of our parts. I take some of the blame for not having yelled
about this more than I have. But at the same time that every other
nuclear power is modernizing its forces, both its facilities and its
capability to maintain its weapons, its weapons, and, in the case of
the Russians and the Chinese, their delivery systems as well--while
every one of them has a capacity to do that, to actually produce a
warhead to put back into production when one comes out of production,
the United States does not. The country that literally invented these
weapons with the Manhattan Project is still using Manhattan Project--
that is 1942, in case you have forgotten--era buildings to take care of
these most sophisticated weapons. If you were to liken it to a car, it
would be like a Ferrari race car or Formula 1 race car, highly
technical--I don't think you would want to refurbish those in
somebody's old backyard garage.
The bottom line is that these facilities have to be brought up to
modern standards to be able to modernize our weapons over time. Why do
the weapons have to be modernized? Generally speaking, these are
weapons that were designed in the 1970s, built in the 1980s, and built
to last 10 years. Do the math. We are still relying on those weapons.
What we found, even though we have cut way back on the funding for
what we call surveillance--that is to say, taking a look at several of
these weapons every year, taking the skin off, looking down inside,
seeing what is rusty and what is loose and so on, to
[[Page 22291]]
use an analogy to a car maybe--what we found is that there are
significant issues with these weapons that need to be addressed if our
commanders and labs are to continue to be able to secure them as safe,
secure, and reliable, as they must.
So we need the facilities in which to bring these sophisticated
weapons in, take them apart, make sure they are put back together
properly with all the requisite either new parts or reused parts or
whatever is necessary to continue to allow them to work and get them
back into production.
The timeline on this is more than critical. Suffice it to say in this
open session of Congress that we dare not waste any more time at all. I
think that is one of the reasons why the President's advisers from the
laboratories and the Department of Defense and Energy presented this to
the President and his nuclear posture review. In the modernization plan
he developed, there is a very firm commitment on his part to move
forward with this, because no time can be wasted.
To give you one illustration, when we left one of the facilities we
had examined--we have been to each of these facilities and we have
talked to the people there, and we were given a little souvenir from
one of them. It is encased in plastic, a little vacuum tube. It is a
vacuum tube such as those that came out of our black-and-white TVs back
in the 1960s, I guess. It is still being used in a component of one of
our weapons, and they are replacing it with circuit boards, of course.
That is the kind of thing that needs to be modernized in these
weapons. So what is it going to take to do it? Well, the Congress,
understanding that we had to get about this, in the last Defense bill
put in a requirement that the President prepare a plan. It is named
after the section of the bill, which was 1251. That section of the bill
now is the nomenclature for the plan, the 1251 plan for modernizing our
forces.
This followed a speech Secretary Gates made. Let me quote from the
speech and then get into a little bit of the detail here. He said:
To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a
credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our
stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile
or pursuing a modernization program.
That was pretty much the genesis, that and the so-called Perry-
Schlesinger Commission, which ran the red flag up the flagpole to get
this program moving. So in fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration
devoted $6.4 billion to nuclear weapon activities, but it has
acknowledged that that is a loss of purchasing power of about 20
percent, from 2005--this is by the administration's own calculations.
So we knew from the very beginning there was not enough money in the
plan to get the job done.
In December, a year ago, 41 Senators--this is before Scott Brown, I
might add, joined us--wrote a letter to the President stating:
Funding for such a modernization program beginning in
earnest in your FY 11 budget is needed as the U.S. considers
the further nuclear weapon reductions proposed in the START
follow-on negotiations.
To make a long story short, the administration had a 10-year plan in
place that was becoming pretty apparent would not be adequate. That 10-
year plan called for about $7 billion a year over 10 years, to
basically operate the facilities. I have said, it is like the money to
keep the lights on, but not money for this new modernization of our
nuclear warheads or most of it would not have gone to that.
They realized they needed about $10 billion, at least according to
their initial calculations. They got about half of that from the
Defense Department, the other half they figured they would get from
savings from recalculating interest costs in the latter years of the
budget. So they added a $10 billion slug onto the $70 billion that was
already budgeted for general operation of the system, and said that is
our $80 billion modernization program. But based upon work that had
done by laboratories earlier, by other study groups and so on, a lot of
experts agreed, including all of the former lab directors, that that
slug of $10 billion would never be adequate for the costly items that
needed to be performed over the next decade. Most of us estimated it to
be about double that cost or about $20 billion. I think that is
essentially where we are going to end up, by the way.
In any event, the two biggest drivers are two new buildings,
facilities that have to be built, one for plutonium work at Los Alamos
Lab in New Mexico, the other for uranium work at the so-called Y-12
plant at Oak Ridge, TN. Those two buildings alone could end up costing
over $10 billion. As a result, as I said, we went to the administration
and said, we appreciate this modernization plan, but you need to update
the plan and incorporate a lot of new costs.
We showed them a lot of areas in which there were deficiencies,
including deferred maintenance that had to be performed. We even
pointed out there was a billion-dollar unfunded pension liability that
would have to be dealt with in order for the scientists to continue to
work. I will not go into the quotations here. Vice President Biden
acknowledged the same thing in a statement he made. I appreciate the
fact that, by the way, they complimented our work and our staff for
pointing out a lot of these things, which were the bases then for the
administration coming back and doing an update to the 1251 plan, which
at least incorporated funding for some of the items we had talked
about.
There has been some talk about an additional $4.1 billion, and I know
Senator Kerry will confirm this. It grates on me, and I am sure it does
on him as well, to hear people referring to this in negotiation terms:
Well, they gave Kyl another $4.1 billion. That should be enough.
That is not the point here. This is an ongoing, evolving process. The
administration has also identified about another $2 billion likely to
have to be spent within 6 years, but they were only looking at a 5-year
process, so that $4 billion pertains to 5 years. My guess is, there
will be another $6 billion over the last 5 years, and we will
ultimately look at about $20 billion, more or less.
The point is, I did not believe the administration had been
sufficiently careful in defining the requirements and identifying the
amount of money that would be needed. I have said to many people,
including my colleague Senator Kerry, we better not underestimate this
for the appropriations Members of Congress. We better let them know
upfront, this is going to be pretty costly, and get that out on the
table.
To their credit, the administration has now put out new figures. As I
will discuss in more detail later, but to summarize here, while that is
a big step forward and very welcome, and I will support it all, there
are other things that need to be done. One of the biggest concerns I
have is that it achieves this objective in part by simply extending the
date to complete these two big facilities I mentioned by another 2
years. They would not be complete until 2023 for one and 2024 for the
other one.
That has the advantage of getting them outside the 10-year budget
window, so you do not count any new money, but it extends the time by
which these facilities can be done. And every year we were told it is
about a $200 million expense to keep the existing facilities operating.
So we are losing a lot of money every year that we do not get these
two new buildings constructed so we can move into them and get the
modernization done. That is the biggest concern I have. I will talk
about some others later.
But let me conclude here with a couple of quotations that I think
illustrate the importance of doing what we need to do here.
Tom D'Agostino, who is the Deputy NNSA Administrator said:
Our plans for investment in and modernization of the modern
security enterprise are essential, irrespective of whether or
not the START treaty is ratified.
He and I think all of us agree, it is even more important if we go
down to the lower numbers in the START treaty. But this is important
either way. I note that former Energy Secretary
[[Page 22292]]
Spence Abraham wrote a column in Weekly Standard recently that made the
same point, that regardless of what is done on the START treaty, this
modernization needs to move forward.
I made the point earlier about how the House Democrats conditioned
the funding on ratification of START. I hope in the comments that are
made on the floor here, it may be the subject of an--in fact, it
probably will be the subject of at least one amendment to the
resolution of ratification. But this is a place where the debate we
have, the comments we make, may be as important as an amendment,
because it is a statement of our intention as Senators. I think you
will find that republican Senators who support the START treaty, and I
am sure Democratic Senators who support the START treaty, will all say,
one of the things that has to happen is the modernization of our
facilities, along the lines of this updated 1251 plan, and the
statements that the administration, as well as we, have made.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. KYL. I will yield.
Mr. KERRY. I want to compliment the Senator, and confirm on the
record that Senator Kyl indeed brought to the attention of the
administration and to all of us several points which the laboratory
chiefs agreed were in deficiency. And he is absolutely correct, that
while it is not directly within the four corners of the treaty, the
modernization, per se, obviously if you contemplate reductions, you
have to also be able to understand you are maintaining the capacity of
your existing force. Senator Kyl has been diligent in pursuing that.
I also applaud the administration for responding, and I think he
would too, and acknowledging that. So he is correct, that I think this
part of the record is an important one. We have met separately with
Senator Inouye, with Senator Feinstein, and they have agreed with
Senator Kyl, that they accept the need to continue down to the levels
that the administration has put on the table, and they are committed to
doing that.
That said, let me also place in the Record a letter from our three
laboratory leaders, Dr. George Miller at Lawrence Livermore, Dr.
Michael Anastasio, who was just referred to at Los Alamos, and Dr. Paul
Hommert at Sandia. I will read the relevant portion. I will put the
whole thing in the Record. But here is what they say:
We are very pleased by the update to the Section 1251
Report, as it would enable the laboratories to execute our
requirements for ensuring a safe, secure, reliable and
effective stockpile under the Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Plan. In particular, we are pleased because it
clearly responds to many of the concerns that we and others
have voiced in the past about potential future-year funding
shortfalls, and it substantially reduces risks to the overall
program. We believe that, if enacted, the added funding
outlined in the Section 1251 Report update--for enhanced
surveillance, pensions, facility construction and Readiness
in Technical Base and Facilities among other programs--would
establish a workable funding level for a balanced program
that sustains the science, technology and engineering base.
In summary, we believe the proposed budgets provided adequate
support to sustain the safety, security, reliability and
effectiveness of America's nuclear deterrent within the limit
of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads established by the new
START Treaty with adequate confidence and acceptable risk.
I think it is very important to sort of do that. I would think we
have adequately addressed it, because there is also language in the
resolution of ratification that embraces the modernization component.
So I thank the Senator from Arizona. I think that has been a
constructive component to helping us to be in a position to be able to
ratify the treaty.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague's comments.
Rather than read the remainder of this, I ask unanimous consent that at
the conclusion of my remarks here there will be additional quotations
on the need for modernization by former lab directors Dr. Miller,
Secretary Schlesinger, and several others.
I would conclude by emphasizing what the lab directors also
emphasized in this correspondence. ``As we emphasized in our
testimonies, implementation of the future vision of the nuclear
deterrent will require sustained attention and continued refinement.''
The outyears are very important. That is why the record we create in
this debate is important to ensuring that those who come after us will
appreciate our intentions as we move forward here that we never again
take our eye off the ball and allow the deterioration in our nuclear
forces to occur, as we have, so we can continue to support them as
called for in this modernization plan. I will ask unanimous consent to
have those printed in the Record at this point, and then make the
remainder of the statement at another time when I have not taken up all
of my colleagues' time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Additional Quotes on Modernization
Former laboratory directors: ``However, we believe there
are serious shortfalls in stockpile surveillance activities,
personnel, infrastructure, and the basic sciences necessary
to recover from the successive budget reductions of the last
five years.''\47\
Dr. Michael Anastasio: ``I fear that some may perceive that
the FY11 budget request meets all of the necessary
commitments for the program . . . I am concerned that in the
Administration's Section 1251 report, much of the planned
funding increase for Weapons Activities do not come to
fruition until the second half of the ten year period.''\48\
Dr. George Miller: ``In my opinion, there is no `fat' in
the program of work that has been planned and, in fact,
significant risks exist; therefore, there is no room for
error.''\49\
Secretary Schlesinger: ``I believe that it is immensely
important for the Senate to ensure, what the Administration
has stated as its intent, i.e., that there be a robust plan
with a continuation of its support over the full ten years,
before it proceeds to ratify this START follow on
treaty.''\50\
Secretary Baker: ``Because our security is based upon the
safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons, it is
important that our government budget enough money to
guarantee that those weapons can carry out their
mission.''\51\
Secretary Kissinger: ``As part of a number of
recommendations, my colleagues, Bill Perry, George Shultz,
Sam Nunn, and I have called for significant investment in a
repaired and modernized nuclear weapons infrastructure and
added resources for the three national laboratories.''\52\
Under Secretary Joseph: ``New START must be assessed in the
context of a robust commitment to maintain the necessary
nuclear offensive capabilities required to meet today's
threats and those that may emerge . . . This is a long-term
commitment, not a one-year budget bump-up.''\53\
Under Secretary Edelman: ``a modernized nuclear force is
going to be essential to that. As Secretary Gates suggested
in October 2008, it's a sine qua non for maintaining nuclear
deterrents.''\54\
Secretary Gates: ``I see this treaty as a vehicle to
finally be able to get what we need in the way of
modernization that we have been unable to get otherwise.''
``We are essentially the only nuclear power in the world that
is not carrying out these kinds of modernization
programs.''\55\
Secretary Gates: ``This calls for a reinvigoration of our
nuclear weapons complex that is our infrastructure and our
science technology and engineering base. And I might just
add, I've been up here for the last four springs trying to
get money for this and this is the first time I think I've
got a fair shot of actually getting money for our nuclear
arsenal.''\56\
NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino: ``The B61 warhead is
one of our oldest warheads in the stockpile from a design
standpoint. And actually warheads [are] in the stockpile . .
. that have vacuum tubes . . . We can't continue to operate
in this manner where we're replacing things with vacuum
tubes. Neutron generators and power supplies and the radar
essentially are components that have to be addressed in this
warhead. Also I think importantly this warhead, the work on
this warhead, will provide our first real opportunity to
actually increase the safety and security of that warhead for
21st century safety and security into that warhead. So when
we work on warheads from now on I'd like to be in the
position of saying we made it safer, we made it more secure,
we increased the reliability to ensure that we would stay
very far away from ever having to conduct an underground
test.''\57\
ENDNOTES
\47\``Harold Agnew et al., Letter from 10 Former National
Laboratory Directors to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. May 19, 2010.
\48\Dr. Michael It Anastasio, Director, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee,
July 15, 2010.
\49\Dr. George Miller, Director, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Testimony to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Response to QFR, July 15, 2010.
[[Page 22293]]
\50\Secretary James Schlesinger, Testimony to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. April 29, 2010.
\51\Secretary James Baker, Testimony to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. May 19, 2010.
\52\Secretary Henry Kissinger, Testimony to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. May 25, 2010.
\53\Under Secretary Robert Joseph, Testimony to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. June 24, 2010.
\54\Under Secretary Eric Edelman, Testimony to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. June 24, 2010.
\55\Secretary Robert Gates, Testimony to the Senate Armed
Services Committee. June 17, 2010.
\56\Secretary Robert Gates, Testimony to the Senate Armed
Services Committee. June 17, 2010.
\57\NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino, Testimony to the
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April
14, 2010.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I look
forward with anticipation to when he returns to the floor with an
amendment. We look forward to moving on that. I also regret that he
will not be here, because I would like to be able to answer some of the
concerns he raised, because I think there are answers to them. I think
it is important obviously for that part of the record.
Some of the questions that were raised were questions about
verification. I will not take a long time, because I know the Senator
from Nebraska and the Senator from Georgia are waiting to speak. In a
letter from the Secretary of Defense to us regarding this issue of
verification--and we may well have a closed session where we will
discuss that to some degree. But in the letter, Secretary Gates writes
to me, and, through me, to the Senate, saying:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint
Chiefs, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, and I assess
that Russia will not be able to achieve militarily
significant cheating or breakout under New START, due to both
the New START verification regime and the inherent
survivability and flexibility of the planned U.S. Strategic
force structure.
They have confidence in this verification regime. We need to have
confidence in the leadership of our military, national security
agencies, the intelligence agencies, and the strategic command, all of
whom are confident we have the capacity to verify under this treaty.
I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
The Secretary of Defense,
Pentagon,
Washington, DC, Jul 30, 2010.
Hon. John Kerry,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: (U) As the Senate considers the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, I
would like to share the Department's assessment of the
military significance of potential Russian cheating or
breakout, based on the recent National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) on monitoring the Treaty. As you know, a key criterion
in evaluating whether the Treaty is effectively verifiable is
whether the U.S. would be able to detect, and respond to, any
Russian attempt to move beyond the Treaty's limits in a way
that has military significance, well before such an attempt
threatened U.S. national security.
(U) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint
Chiefs, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, and I assess
that Russia will not be able to achieve militarily
significant cheating or breakout under New START, due to both
the New START verification regime and the inherent
survivability and flexibility of the planned U.S. strategic
force structure. Additional Russian warheads above the New
START limits would have little or no effect on the U.S.
assured second-strike capabilities that underwrite stable
deterrence. U.S. strategic submarines (SSBNs) at sea, and any
alert heavy bombers will remain survivable irrespective of
the numbers of Russian warheads, and the survivability of
U.S. inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) would be
affected only marginally by additional warheads provided by
any Russian cheating or breakout scenario.
(U) If Russia were to attempt to gain political advantage
by cheating or breakout, the U.S. will be able to respond
rapidly by increasing the alert levels of SSBNs and bombers,
and by uploading warheads on SSBNs, bombers, and ICBMs.
Therefore, the survivable and flexible U.S. strategic posture
planned for New START will help deter any future Russian
leaders from cheating or breakout from the Treaty, should
they ever have such an inclination.
(U) This assessment does not mean that Russian compliance
with the New START Treaty is unimportant. The U.S. expects
Russia to fully abide by the Treaty, and the U.S. will use
all elements of the verification regime to ensure this is the
case. Any Russian cheating could affect the sustainability of
the New START Treaty, the viability of future arms control
agreements, and the ability of the U.S. and Russia to work
together on other issues. Should there be any signs of
Russian cheating or preparations to breakout from the Treaty,
the Executive branch would immediately raise this matter
through diplomatic channels, and if not resolved, raise it
immediately to higher levels. We would also keep the Senate
informed.
(U) Throughout my testimony on this Treaty, I have
highlighted the Treaty's verification regime as one of its
most important contributions. Our analysis of the NIE and the
potential for Russian cheating or breakout confirms that the
Treaty's verification regime is effective, and that our
national security is stronger with this Treaty than without
it. I look forward to the Senate's final advice and consent
of this important Treaty.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gates.
Mr. KERRY. One last quick comment. Senator Kyl knows these materials
very well. He is an effective advocate for a point of view. But that
does not mean that by saying those things, all of them have a factual
underpinning or that they are, in fact, the best judgment as to what
our military thinks or the national intelligence community thinks about
the components of this treaty. Let me give an example. Senator Kyl has
raised concerns about the conventional prompt global strike capacity.
What he didn't say is, Russia very much wanted to ban strategic range
conventional weapons systems altogether. We rejected that approach. The
Obama administration said: No; we are not going to ban all conventional
capacity. In effect, they decided to proceed along the same approach we
used in START I.
Ted Warner, the representative of the Secretary of Defense to the
negotiation, testified in the Foreign Relations Committee, saying we
agreed to a regime whereby conventionally armed ICBMs or SLBMs--for the
folks who don't follow this, those are the intercontinental ballistic
missiles or submarine-launched ballistic missiles--would be permitted.
But, yes, they did agree to count them under the strategic delivery
vehicle and strategic warhead ceilings. Senator Kyl sees that as a
problem. All of our folks who negotiated this treaty and our military
and our strategic thinkers see that as an advantage for the United
States. That protects us. We are better off that way. Why? Because it
would be extraordinarily difficult to verify compliance with a treaty
that limited nuclear-tipped ICBMs and SLBMs but didn't count and,
therefore, didn't inspect identical conventionally armed ICBMs and
SLBMs. We couldn't tell the difference between them. We would be
absolutely foolish on our part to allow the Russians to deploy
additional ICBMs and SLBMs based exclusively on their assurance that
they are not nuclear armed. How would we know? It is only by putting
them under the counting that we, in fact, protect the interests of our
country rather than creating a whole sidebar arms race which would make
everybody less safe. Not counting those missiles would, in fact, create
a new risk--the risk of breakout, that we allow the other side, Russia,
the opportunity, even if there were no cheating, to simply leave the
treaty and arm those missiles with nuclear warheads on very short
notice, and we would all be worse off.
In fact, what Senator Kyl was complaining about is something that
makes us more stable. If we did what he is sort of hinting he might
like to do, we could actually create greater instability, and it would
be clearly much more likely to kill the treaty altogether.
Some of these things get raised and they sound like there is
reasonableness to them. But when we put them in the overall context of
strategic analysis and thinking and the balance, the sort of threat
analysis that attaches to any treaty of this sort, what we are trying
to work through is sort of reaching an equilibrium between both sides'
perceptions of the other side's capacity and of what kind of threat
that exposes each side to. That is how we sort of arrive at that
equilibrium. That is what has
[[Page 22294]]
driven every arms control agreement since their inception. The Pentagon
has made very clear that the global prompt strike is going to be
developed, but it is going to be developed as a niche capacity. They
think it is too expensive to do in huge numbers. It is also very clear
that under the best circumstances, it is going to be a long time before
that is ready to deploy.
We have boost-glide vehicles still in the proof-of-concept test
stage. Nobody has any imagination as to whether they will be ready in
10 or 15 years. The life of this treaty is 10 years. So we are looking
beyond the life of the treaty for when they might or might not be
ready. There are a host of other concepts out there about this. We are
going to get a report from the Pentagon next year on what technologies
they think are most promising. It is going to be exceedingly difficult
to imagine bringing them online within the 10-year life of this treaty.
Any concept of sort of revising things that make this treaty subject to
some component of that is, in effect, a guise to try to kill the
treaty. I say that about this one component of it. There are many
others, many other similar kinds of arguments raised in the last hour.
As we go forward, if an amendment arises, we will deal with each of
them.
I want colleagues to be aware there is more underneath some of these
red herrings than may appear to the eye at first blush.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. May I inquire if there is a scheduled recess at 12:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not under that order.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I was on the floor last night and
addressed my significant concerns with the omnibus and the dual-track
process we are on right now. That statement has been made. I come this
morning to address the START treaty, the New START treaty. I voted for
it to come out of the Foreign Relations Committee to the floor. I want
to go through my reasons for having done so. I wanted to talk about
what the New START treaty is, not what it is not.
First, I want to pay tribute to Dick Lugar. He has been a bastion of
strength on nuclear proliferation and nonproliferation issues for
years. I thank Senator Kerry for the time he gave us to go through hour
after hour after hour of hearings and hour after hour after hour of
secure briefing in the bowels of the new Visitor Center, where we read
the summary of the notes of negotiations on the treaty, where we read
the threat initiative and the estimate of the terrorism threat
initiative and all the classified documentation about which we cannot
speak on this floor. These things are critical to our consideration as
we debate this treaty.
I wish to talk about two Senators, one a Democrat and one a
Republican. With all due respect to the chairman, it is not he. It is a
Democrat by the same of Sam Nunn from Georgia, who chaired the Armed
Services Committee, who, along with Senator Lugar, put together Nunn-
Lugar and the cooperative threat initiative. I sought out Senator Nunn
and Senator Lugar in my deliberations during the committee debate and
my consideration of what I would do in terms of that committee vote and
later a vote on the floor. I wish to make a couple notes about the
success of the Nunn-Lugar initiative. Nunn-Lugar is a commitment to see
to it that nuclear materials are secure. It is a commitment to see to
it that loose nukes around the world don't fall in the hands of those
who would kill my grandchildren, your grandchildren or all of us in the
United States. I don't think it has been mentioned, but as a result of
the Nunn-Lugar initiative, since 1991, since its formation, they have
reduced the number of loose nukes in the world by 7,599.
Belarus, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan no longer have nuclear arsenals.
Through that comprehensive threat initiative, they have destroyed the
weapons, and they have turned weapons of mass destruction into
plowshares that are powering powerplants. The nuclear threat initiative
does not mean we get out of the business of having a nuclear arsenal.
It means we get in the business of security for the nukes that are
there and establish goals toward nonproliferation which to all of us is
critically important.
My history as far as this goes back to the 1950s. It goes back to Ms.
Hamberger's first grade class, when I remember getting under the school
desk once a week to practice what we would do if a nuclear attack hit
the United States. My history with this goes back to October of 1962
when, as a freshman at the University of Georgia, I stood in fear with
all my colleagues and watched what was happening in Cuba, watched the
blockade, watched the strength of John Kennedy, who faced the Russians
down and ultimately prevented what would have been a nuclear strike
against the United States and ultimately our strike against them in
Cuba as well as in Russia.
Then I remember the night in October of 1986, when I had the honor to
introduce Ronald Reagan in Atlanta the night before he flew to Iceland
to begin negotiations on nuclear treaties at that time. In one speech
made today, it has been referenced that Reagan rejected what Gorbachev
offered at Reykjavik. That is correct. Reagan rejected not doing
research and development and building a nuclear arsenal. But what he
did insist on was verification of what both countries were doing so we
could never have a situation of not having transparency, not having
intelligence, and not knowing what the right and left hand were doing.
It was out of that rejection and at his insistence that the beginning
of the negotiations for the START treaty began. They were ultimately
signed in 1991, under the administration of George H.W. Bush.
Until December 5 of last year, that START treaty had been in place.
For those years, the United States had transparency. It had
verification. It had cooperative communication back and forth between
the two countries that controlled 90 percent of the nuclear weapons in
the world. My history with this goes all the way back to climbing under
a school desk, to introducing President Ronald Reagan, to 1 year
serving on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.
My decision to support the treaty coming out of the committee were
based on four principles. The first is inspections. It has been said
the inspections have been reduced. What has not been said is the number
of sites to inspect have also been greatly reduced. The number of
inspections correspond with what is necessary to inspect the Russian
arsenal and know whether they are complying with the treaty.
Inspections are very important. We learned on 9/11 what happens when we
don't have human intelligence on the ground where we need it. What
happens is we get surprised. What happened to us on 9/11 is almost
3,000 citizens died at the hands of a heinous attack by radical
terrorists because we didn't have as good intelligence as we needed to
have. That is why I don't want to turn my back on the opportunity to
have human intelligence on the ground in the Russian Federation
verifying that they are complying with a mutual pact we have made with
them and, correspondingly, the transparency they have to inspect our
nuclear arsenal in the United States.
The second point I wish to make that caused me to come to the
conclusion it was the right thing to do to support the treaty in
committee was the verification process. I have heard some people say
this verification process is not as good as the old verification
process. I am not going to get into that argument, but this
verification process is a heck of a lot better than no verification
process at all, which is exactly what we have today.
Since December 5 of last year, we haven't had the human intelligence.
We couldn't verify. Verification is critically important because with
verification comes communication. With communication comes
understanding, and from that understanding and communication comes
intelligence. While our inspections are to make sure the quantity of
the nuclear arsenal and the warheads and the delivery systems are
within compliance, it also gives us interaction to learn what others
may
[[Page 22295]]
know about nuclear weapons around the world that are not covered by
this treaty.
That brings me to one other point. It has been said by some that
bilateral treaties are no longer useful in terms of nuclear power; we
need multilateral treaties. I have to ask this question: If we reject
the one bilateral treaty over nuclear power, how will we ever get to a
multilateral treaty? We will not do it. I think it is important to have
a bilateral treaty between the two countries that controls 90 percent
of the weapons so we see to it, as other countries gain nuclear power,
we can bring them into a regimen that requires transparency and
accountability too. You will never be able to do that if you reject it
between yourself and the Russian Federation.
Now, the third thing I want to talk about for a second--I mentioned
Senator Nunn before. He served as Armed Services chairman, and so did
John Warner, who is a distinguish retired Republican Member of this
Senate. They released a joint statement not too long ago and raised a
point I had not thought of. If you will beg my doing this, I will read
on the floor of the Senate one of the points they made that was
supportive of this treaty. I quote from Senator Nunn and Senator
Warner:
. . . Washington and Moscow should expand use of existing
Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers--which we--
Meaning Warner and Nunn--
and other members of Congress--
Meaning Dick Lugar--
established with President Ronald Reagan to further reduce
nuclear threats.
For example, to improve both nations' early warning
capabilities, the centers could exchange data on global
missile launchers. Other nations could be integrated into
this system. It could provide the basis for a joint
initiative involving Russia, the United States and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization on a missile defense
architecture for Europe that would help address other key
issues, like tactical nuclear weapons vulnerable to theft by
terrorists. Indeed, when the centers were proposed, they were
envisioned to help prevent catastrophic nuclear terrorism.
These initiatives can go forward with a New START Treaty.
I thought that observation was very telling and looking prospectively
into the future about, again, having the two nations--the Russian
Federation and the United States--bring in other people, such as NATO,
to be a part of a treaty and a missile defense system that is agreeable
with all parties. The absence of negotiation, the absence of
transparency, the absence of cooperation ensures that cannot happen.
My fourth point is this: The thing I fear the most as a citizen, the
thing I fear the most as a Senator, and the thing I fear the most,
quite frankly, as the father of three and grandfather of nine is a
nuclear fissionable material getting into the hands of a radical
terrorist. That is the fear that all of us dread.
It is critical, when we look at what the Nunn-Lugar initiative has
done in the destruction of loose nukes--7,599--what the original START
treaty, the foundation it gave us, to begin to reduce nuclear weapon
proliferation without reducing our ability to defend ourselves and to
launch strikes that are necessary to protect the people of the United
States of America.
But I worry about one of the radical terrorists getting hold of one
of these materials, and I fear in the absence of transparency,
verification, and inspection, we run the risk, unwittingly, of playing
into their hands and making that type of a material more and more
available.
What is known as the Lugar Doctrine is very important to understand
at this stage of the debate. In doing my research on the treaty, and
the work that Dick Lugar and others have done on nonproliferation, I
came upon what is known as the Lugar Doctrine. I would like to read it
because it answers the question I just raised about a loose nuke
getting into the hands of a rogue terrorist:
Every nation that has weapons and materials of mass
destruction must account for what it has, spend its own money
or obtain international technical and financial resources to
safely secure what it has, and pledge that no other nation,
cell, or cause will be allowed access or use.
That is as clearly and as succinctly as you can state the future fear
that all of us have for this country and what might happen with nuclear
weapons.
So in closing my remarks, I went through interviews with Sam Nunn,
listened to the chairman and the ranking member, listened to the
testimony, Ms. Gottemoeller, and all the others, read the
documentation, which everybody else can read in the secure briefing
room, and I came to the conclusion that verification is better than no
verification at all; that inspections and transparency are what
prohibit things like what happened on 9/11 from ever happening again,
and that you can never expect multilateral negotiations with other
countries that have some degree of nuclear power if the two greatest
powers refuse to sit down and negotiate and extend the understanding
they have had since 1991.
Only through setting the example, without giving in or capitulating a
thing, do we hopefully give hope to the future that my grandchildren
and yours can live in a world that will not be free of nukes but will
be secure; that loose nukes are not in the hands of bad people; and we
have transparency and accountability while still having the capability
to defend ourselves and execute the security of the people of the
United States of America.
It is for those reasons I supported the New START treaty in the
committee, and I submit it for the consideration of the Members of the
Senate.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise to discuss the New
START treaty. In the last 40 years, our country has participated in
numerous arms control and nonproliferation efforts. They are a critical
element of our national security strategy.
If done right, arms control agreements can enhance U.S. national
security by promoting transparency and information--sharing that can
inform us about the size, makeup, and operations of other military
forces.
They also provide other countries with information about our force
and capabilities, and that promotes a strategic balance and discourages
an attack on the U.S. or its allies.
Transparency and information sharing enable our military planners to
better prepare for a real threat. Without such agreements and
understandings, our military and the military of countries like Russia
must prepare for worst-case scenarios.
That leads to inefficient, runaway defense spending. If that sounds
familiar, that is because we have been down that road before--it was
called the arms race.
The U.S. and the former Soviet Union poured massive resources into
building not only vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but also on the
expansive systems needed to defend against incoming bombers and
missiles.
Since the late 1960s, arms control agreements and other measures have
worked to reduce nuclear forces and systems that support them.
I would note that former President Ronald Reagan, who accelerated
nuclear modernization and launched the Star Wars missile defense
effort, overcame his initial distaste for arms control agreements.
Working with Soviet Premier Gorbachev, Reagan laid the foundation for
today's START treaty.
In July 1991, Presidents Bush and Gorbachev signed the START I treaty
and the Senate later approved it on an overwhelming and bipartisan vote
of 93 to 6--a vote which concluded after 4 days of floor debate.
Nebraska's Senators at the time, Jim Exon and Bob Kerrey both supported
the START 1 treaty.
As we consider New START, it is our constitutional duty to address
today's concerns and the treaty's merits.
Now I have heard five main concerns during debate.
They are: No. 1, treaty limitations on missile defense; No. 2,
sufficiency of modernization plans for nuclear enterprise; No. 3,
adequacy of treaty verification measures; No. 4, force structure
changes resulting from treaty reductions; No. 5, and the timing of the
Senate's deliberations of the treaty.
[[Page 22296]]
First, the New START treaty won't affect any current or planned U.S.
missile defense efforts. Some point to language in the treaty's
preamble and the inclusion of unilateral statements. But they are not
legally binding. And changing the preamble would unravel the treaty.
The only binding restriction on missile defense systems arises in
article V. It prevents conversion of ICBM silos into missile defense
launchers. That has no practical effect because converting silos is
more expensive and less desirable than building new silos.
Second, some have questioned the administration's commitment to
modernize our nuclear facilities and forces. As the chairman of the
Armed Services' Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I held three hearings
this year addressing the health of our nuclear weapons complex.
I would note that the administration asked for $7 billion in Fiscal
Year 2011 for stockpile sustainment and infrastructure investments.
That is roughly 10 percent more than 2010 funding.
The administration also plans to invest $80 billion in the next
decade to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex. That is
the biggest commitment to the nuclear enterprise in more than a decade.
On top of that, the administration recently offered an additional $4
billion toward modernization goals.
Third, some argue that verification measures are less rigorous than
for START I.
Its verification measures expired last December. So, as of today, we
have gone 376 days without onsite monitoring and verification in
Russia.
The less we are allowed to see for ourselves the more uncertainty we
will feel about Russian forces.
New START includes verification measures allowing 18 onsite
inspections annually. We determine where and when to go, with very
little advance notice to the Russians.
As many of you know, this treaty counts every warhead and delivery
system and tracks them with unique identifiers. That is a tremendous
advancement in transparency over the previous system of attribution.
And it certainly is better than no verification system, which exists at
the present time.
Fourth, some express concern about the treaty's impact on the nuclear
triad--our strategic bombers, missiles, and ballistic missile
submarines.
In testimony and in direct conversations with me, our military
leaders have assured that the New START retains the triad.
Proposed reductions by the Pentagon aim to spread across all systems
and minimize impacts to any one system or base, thus retaining a safe,
secure, and effective triad.
Finally, some indicate that considering New START now prevents the
Senate from spending adequate time to consider the treaty, or that we
would be rushing judgment on the treaty.
New START was signed in April of this year, and the Senate has had it
for consideration since May.
Together, the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Armed Services
Committees have held 21 hearings and briefings related to the treaty.
The truth is that the Senate has been actively deliberating New START
for 7 months.
By comparison the 2002 Moscow Treaty took 9 months to complete and
START I took a little more than a year. When it came to floor debate,
the 1991 START I treaty required 4 days of debate, while START II, the
Chemical Weapons Convention and the 2002 Moscow Treaty each took 2
days.
I am confident that the Senate has fulfilled its responsibility to
fully consider and deliberate on New START, and our actions are
entirely consistent with the past actions of this body in considering
previous arms control agreements.
Those are concerns that have been raised. Now let's look now at the
merits.
In recent months, I have spoken about this treaty with key military
leaders including Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Cartwright,
and General Chilton.
Each has expressed full support and participation in this treaty.
They also fully support the proposed reductions to the nuclear arsenal
and the continued sustainment of the nuclear triad.
In addition, Secretary Clinton and every living former Secretary of
State--nine in total--have all publically voiced their support. Five
former Secretaries of Defense on both sides of the aisle have endorsed
the treaty. Seven former Strategic Command commanders have endorsed the
treaty. STRATCOM, headquartered in my State in Omaha, NE, in the
Bellevue area, oversees America's strategic nuclear, nonnuclear and
cyber defenses.
Also, it is important, I believe, that the U.S. Strategic Command
actively played a key role in negotiating the treaty. With that
experience, the former STRATCOM commander in chief General Chilton who
is recently departed, said:
Our nation will be safer and more secure with this treaty
than without it. What we negotiated to is absolutely
acceptable to the United States Strategic Command for what we
need to do to provide the deterrent for the country.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I am prepared to vote to ratify the New START Treaty because it
promotes our national security and can make America and the world
safer. It increases transparency between nuclear nations. It promotes
cooperation and not suspicion. And it reduces the possibility of a
nuclear exchange and still enables America to respond to the terrible
threats that continue in the nuclear age.
I would like to elaborate.
America will be stronger if we can continue to look under Russia's
hood, and they under ours. Trust but verify still works.
This treaty will help U.S. Strategic Command accomplish its
absolutely vital mission for our Nation.
Further, as the chairman of the U.S. Senate--Russia
Interparliamentary Group, I have held many meetings with my Russian
counterparts about this treaty. It is a step in the right direction to
encourage further cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. As we work
toward cooperation, the treaty reestablishes verification measures and
increases transparency considerably.
That will reduce uncertainty about Russian forces, and increase their
predictability. Without this treaty, our understanding of Russian
nuclear forces will continue to deteriorate.
We would have a tendency for U.S. forces to overcompensate for what
we don't know.
That is a losing strategy in an era of large budget deficits and
needed fiscal constraint. Entering into this treaty demonstrates our
commitment to modernizing the nuclear stockpile by making the most of
what we have to spend and to keep our country safe.
The New START treaty offers the possibility of providing our military
with insights needed to efficiently and successfully provide a safe,
reliable, and secure nuclear deterrent.
At the end of the day, the New START treaty builds on successes from
previous treaties, and paves the way for further bilateral agreements
between the United States and Russia.
It moves us further away from a nuclear war no one wants. Even as it
does, we will retain a powerful and effective deterrent capability.
And finally, ratification also will send a strong message to those
around the world opposed to proliferation and those seeking to
proliferate.
For these reasons, I support the New START treaty and I believe the
Senate should ratify it as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to speak briefly on the
New START treaty and state the reasons I believe the Senate should go
ahead and ratify this treaty.
Let me highlight some key points on, first, what the treaty
accomplishes. Let me mention four things.
No. 1, it reduces the number of deployed nuclear warheads by a
relatively small number; that is, it takes us from 2,200, which is what
we were required to reduce to under the Moscow Treaty, down to 1,550.
Second, its counting regime is not based on attributing a number of
warheads to a launch system but, instead,
[[Page 22297]]
like the 2002 Moscow Treaty, this treaty actually requires the counting
of deployed warheads.
Third, this treaty reestablishes a verification regime of inspectors
on the ground. This is something which lapsed a year ago when START I
lapsed.
Fourth, this treaty still maintains a credible nuclear deterrent
against Russia, against China, against anyone who might threaten our
country.
Before discussing some of these points in detail, let me put the New
START treaty in some historical perspective, at least as I see it.
As this chart graphically demonstrates, at the peak of the Cold War
some 30 years ago there were about 60,000 nuclear warheads. That is
clearly an astounding number given that a single warhead would destroy
most major American cities and most major cities anywhere in the world.
From 1991, when the first START treaty was signed, until 2002 when
the Moscow Treaty was signed, the number of warheads declined
dramatically from about 50,000 to a little over 20,000, or about 10,000
for the United States and 10,000 for Russia. This includes spare and
deployed warheads not just those that were deployed. The Moscow Treaty
took this count further down and allowed 2,200 to 1,700 deployed
warheads. Additional spares of about 3,300 were included, and the
number rises to somewhere between 5,500 and down to 5,000 warheads for
each nation. If the New START treaty is ratified as shown on this
chart, down here where this arrow is in the right-hand bottom corner,
in 2010, it will take the number of deployed warheads to 1,550 from the
Moscow lower limit of 1,700 that was in the Moscow Treaty. That is a
very modest reduction compared to what has been done in previous arms
control agreements.
After the Cold War ended 20 years ago, it was clear we had an
astounding and excessive number of nuclear weapons. I believe it was
the hope and the expectation of most Americans that there would be deep
reductions in nuclear weapons at that time. That reduction, in my view,
has been slow in coming. Our government has declassified the number of
nuclear warheads we have in our active stockpile, and that number is
5,113. If asked directly, I believe most Americans would be surprised
to know at the end of 2010 we still have over 5,000 nuclear warheads,
and we have 2,200 that are deployed.
Today we have a treaty before us that achieves a modest reduction
from the Moscow level of 2,200 deployed warheads. As I indicated
before, this treaty will take us down to 1,550. Quite frankly, I am
surprised some are arguing for having a drawn-out debate over the
treaty. START I took about 4 days of floor debate and lowered the
number of warheads between Russia and the United States from about
50,000 to 20,000, a 60-percent reduction. The Moscow Treaty lowered the
total number of U.S. warheads from about 11,000 to today's level of
about 5,000. That took 2 days to debate. That involved a 55-percent
reduction. Yet with a relatively modest reduction called for in this
treaty, we still have people proposing a floor debate that could extend
into the next Congress.
Let me turn to a number of substantive issues associated with the New
START treaty that I believe weigh in favor of its ratification by the
Senate. First, we have been briefed by the military commanders about
the 1,550 deployed warheads that will still be in place once this
treaty is approved. This total is comprised of about 700 deployed ICBMs
and SLBMs and about 800 total heavy bombers and launchers.
I urge my colleagues to obtain the classified briefing on the treaty.
I believe it is clear the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command has
analyzed in detail the strategic nuclear force structure of each side
under this treaty and is confident we can maintain our deterrence
against Russia and China, who hold 96 percent of the world's strategic
nuclear warheads.
The resolution of approval as reported by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee speaks to this issue, noting in condition 3 that
before any reductions in deployed warheads are made below the current
Moscow Treaty level, the President must notify Congress that such
reductions are in the ``national security interests of the United
States.''
The second point is that the intelligence community has judged that
we are better off with this treaty and its inspection regime than we
are without it. Monitoring and verification under START I, which has
now expired, was based on counting strategic launch systems and then
attributing a number of warheads to each submarine, each airplane, each
missile. This counting rule overestimated the number of warheads
carried on U.S. strategic systems. The New START treaty is much more
specific than START I. It counts only the actual number of warheads
carried by each deployed missile. In fact, this is the same counting
rule as in the Moscow Treaty which was developed by the prior
administration and subsequently approved in the Senate 95 to 0.
Moreover, under this treaty we have the ability to inspect on the
ground, with short notice, to determine whether uniquely coded
launchers actually carry the declared numbers of warheads. Contrary to
what some have claimed, short notice inspections of uniquely identified
launchers combined with other intelligence assets give us a high
probability of detecting cheating such as uploading more warheads,
which would take days to months for Russia to achieve.
Condition 2 of the resolution of approval out of the committee speaks
to the monitoring issue by requiring the President to certify that our
National Technical Means or other intelligence assets, combined with
our on-the-ground verification capability, is ``sufficient to effective
monitoring of Russian compliance with the provisions of the Treaty.''
Third, there is a larger policy issue of strategic stability. This
treaty provides a framework of transparency through inspections and
accountability of warheads and launchers. If we are worried about
unchecked growth of Russia's strategic nuclear forces, not now but 5
years from now, it makes great sense to approve this treaty.
Many have criticized the treaty because it does not deal with
Russia's numerical advantage and tactical nuclear weapons, such as
gravity bombs or submarine launched cruise missiles. I would point out
that none of the previous nuclear arms control treaties have dealt with
tactical nuclear weapons. While I agree we should have discussions with
Russia on tactical nuclear weapons, we need this treaty to restart the
process of negotiations if we are ever going to achieve the goal of
reducing tactical nuclear weapons.
This treaty lays the groundwork for a subsequent negotiation to
address tactical nuclear weapons, many of which are deployed close to
our NATO allies. If we cannot demonstrate we have the ability to enter
into binding obligations on strategic nuclear forces, which are the
most easily verifiable, how can we advance to the next step with Russia
on reducing their tactical nuclear weapons, which number in the
thousands and which are the most easily concealed of the weapons?
The fourth point: Let me turn to the issue of modernization of our
own nuclear arsenal. Despite our unsustainable budget deficit--and I
notice the Senator from Alabama is on the Senate floor today. He and I
both voted against the tax bill. I don't know all of his reasons. One
of mine was the unsustainable deficits faced by this country today. But
despite these unsustainable budget deficits, this administration is
committing an additional $14 billion over the next 10 years for a total
of $84 billion to modernize our nuclear weapons enterprise to ensure
that as we draw that nuclear arsenal down, reduce the numbers in the
nuclear arsenal under New START, we will be capable of maintaining
those weapons we do rely upon.
Now, this chart shows the 10-year projection for weapons stockpile
and infrastructure funding, and my colleagues can see there is a very
substantial commitment of funds by this administration to maintain the
reliability of our stockpile.
The fifth point I wish to make is that concerns have been raised
regarding the nonbinding Russian unilateral missile defense statement.
This is separate
[[Page 22298]]
from the binding provisions of the treaty. This is a nonbinding
statement that Russia made that considers the treaty effective only
where there is, as they put it, ``no qualitative or quantitative
buildup of the missile defense capabilities of the United States of
America.''
In testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of State
Clinton stated unequivocally the treaty does not constrain our missile
defense efforts. Secretary Clinton went on to say:
Russia has issued a unilateral statement expressing its
view. But we have not agreed to this view and we are not
bound by it. In fact, we have issued our own statement making
it clear that the United States intends to continue improving
and deploying effective missile defense.
In the same hearing, Secretary of Defense Gates said:
The treaty will not constrain the United States from
deploying the most effective missile defense possible, nor
impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses.
Secretary Gates then goes on to say in that hearing:
As the administration's Ballistic Missile Defense Review
and budget makes clear, the United States will continue to
improve our capability to defend ourselves, our deployed
forces and our allies and partners against ballistic missile
threats.
From a historical perspective I would note that similar unilateral
statements on missile defense were made by Russia in connection with
START I and in connection with START II, both of which treaties were
approved by the Congress.
Consistent with the statements by Secretaries Clinton and Gates, the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee's resolution of approval contains an
understanding included in the instrument of ratification that ``it is
the understanding that the New START Treaty does not impose any
limitations on the deployment of missile defenses other than the
requirement of paragraph 3, article V.''
That section of the treaty prohibits the use of existing ICBM and
SLBM launchers for missile defense or the conversion of missile defense
launchers for ICBMs except for those that have been converted before
the treaty was signed.
On the question of whether we should vote on ratification in this
Congress or leave this to the next Congress to consider, some Senators
claim that we simply need more time and that other treaties have laid
before the Congress for much longer periods. This is simply not the
case. Arms control treaties since the ABM Treaty in 1972 were either
taken up, debated and ratified within the same Congress or, in the
cases of START II, the Moscow Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Treaty
were taken up, debated and approved within the Congress from which the
Foreign Relations Committee reported a resolution of approval. This
historical precedent on the ratification of arms control treaties runs
counter to what some of my colleagues are advocating. It is this
congressional session of the Senate that received the treaty, held 21
hearings and briefings and submitted over 900 questions as part of the
advise and consent process and it should be this congressional session
of the Senate that should finish the job.
Let me conclude with where I started on the New START treaty, it is a
relatively modest treaty in terms of reducing the number of nuclear
warheads. Our military commanders have analyzed the force structure
under the treaty and have concluded it maintains our nuclear deterrent
and that it provides on the ground intelligence through verification
that the intelligence community believes we are better off with than
without. Finally, it is clear that it does not impede our missile
defense programs.
In my opinion there is no credible argument that the ratification of
this treaty undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to
vote for the ratification of the New START treaty. I thank the chair
and yield back any remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Alabama is
recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we begin consideration of the New
START treaty, we must understand that the proposal is not made in a
vacuum. In one sense, it is an important part of our Nation's strategic
policy. I have served as chairman, ranking member, and a member of the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, subcommittee of the Armed Services
Committee, for 12 years in the Senate. Thus, on these matters of
nuclear policy and missile defense that have been before us so many
times, I have had a front-row seat on it.
Our President, whose work and proposals absolutely deserve fair and
just consideration in the Senate, after appropriate debate, has stated
that this treaty is a critical part of his approach to strategic
issues, repeatedly insisting that it is needed so the United States can
set an example and show leadership in moving toward what he has often
stated to be his goal--a nuclear-free world.
This treaty now comes at a time when our Nation is the world's only
nuclear power. We are the only nuclear power to have no nuclear
production facility ongoing at this time. It will have to be
reconstituted. That has been a sore spot in this Congress for quite a
number of years, but it has not happened.
For over a decade, the Senate's efforts to modernize our aging
weapons stockpiles--which our scientists have told us are getting to a
point where they have to be fixed--have been blocked by House
Democrats, mostly, and some Republicans there. We have gotten bills out
of the Senate to do this, but they have failed in the House. It has
been an article of faith on the left in America and abroad on the
international left that our goal must be to eliminate all nuclear
weapons from the world. President Obama and his administration have
often used that rhetoric. But our modernization capability hasn't been
started, and that is a troubling situation. As Secretary Gates has said
about modernization, we cannot continue at this rate.
In 2008, I sponsored legislation to create a bipartisan commission of
experienced statesmen to do a study of our nuclear posture. The
legislation passed and the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the
United States did its work. It was headed by Dr. William J. Perry and
James R. Schlesinger, a former Defense Secretary of this country--a
Democrat and Republican. They reached a consensus on a number of key
issues. They concluded that we could reduce our nuclear stockpile more
than the current number, but that ``modernization is essential to the
nonproliferation benefits derived from the extended deterrent.'' So
they said it was essential to have a modernization program.
I know a lot of the discussion has been ongoing about that. I do
believe Senator Kyl has done an excellent job in raising this issue,
and the administration responded positively in some regards. The
Commission also, nicely, in diplomatic language, deflected the
administration's goal of zero nuclear weapons by saying:
It's clear that the goal of zero nuclear weapons is
extremely difficult to attain and would require a fundamental
transformation of the world political order.
I think that is about as close as you come from a bipartisan
commission expressing serious concerns about this policy. Meanwhile,
China, Russia, Pakistan, and India continue to expand their stockpile,
while rogue, outlaw nations, such as North Korea and Iran, posing great
risk to world peace, advance their nuclear weapons programs.
We will need to talk about this more as this debate goes forward. It
is quite clear that the greatest threat to world peace and nuclear
danger arises from the rogue nations and other nations that have less
secure situations than the Russians do. While it could be very
beneficial to have a good treaty with the Russians, this is not the
core of the danger this Nation faces today.
We have had very little work, very little success, in getting the
kind of robust support from Russia and China that we should have
regarding North Korea and Iran. It is inexplicable to me why they would
jeopardize their reputation as a positive force in the world to curry
favor with rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. But this
administration has been unsuccessful in
[[Page 22299]]
gaining the kind of support to ratchet up the sanctions to get those
countries that could perhaps make a difference.
The Russians are steadfast in their nuclear program. They have
absolutely no intention of going to zero nuclear weapons. I had an
opportunity to talk to some of their people, and it is pretty clear to
me they thought it was outside the realm of good judgment to discuss
going to zero nuclear weapons. They were never going to zero nuclear
weapons. They have a 10-to-1 advantage over the United States in
tactical nuclear weapons--more maneuverable--and this treaty does
absolutely nothing to deal with that situation. The Russians may make
some changes in the future, perhaps, but I don't think they are going
to do much on tactical nuclear weapons. It is a critical part of their
defense strategy.
We understand Russia is willing and has plans at this time to reduce
their strategic nuclear stockpile, which is what this treaty deals
with, not the tactical weapons, and that is because it represents a
necessary economic move for them. Frankly, I don't think they see the
United States or Europe as the kind of strategic threat they used to
be, and they are willing to pull down those numbers. It is a good
thing, and we should celebrate what gains we can obtain.
Some close observers believe this treaty curtails the U.S. programs,
such as missile defense, while not curtailing certain Russian
modernization programs of the systems they want to advance. In short,
the Russians seem to have negotiated more effectively than the United
States in this treaty. That is my observation. We wanted it too
desperately. I warned our negotiators that they were too committed, too
desperate to get this treaty. It would make more difficult the
negotiation also with the Russians. I think that has proven to be true.
Let me be plain about my overall concern. First, the idea that it
should be the goal of this country to move toward the total elimination
of nuclear weapons is not just a fantasy, a wild chimera or some
harmless vision; I think it is dangerous. It can only raise questions
about the quality of the judgment that underlies our strategic policy.
The question arises, is the fierce determination of this
administration to get a treaty a part of their stated goal of moving to
zero nuclear weapons and setting ``an example'' for the world? Is the
United States of America, under whose nuclear umbrella resides a host
of free and prosperous nations, no longer reliable as a nuclear power?
We know many other nations that are part of our nuclear umbrella are
worried about our nuclear policy. I can understand that. How far, how
low does this world leadership role take us? How few weapons should we
go to? Down further from 1,500, as this treaty would have it--and that
might be a sustainable number--to 1,000 or 500? Well, not 500, somebody
would say. But I note that Mr. Jim Hoagland, writing in the Washington
Post on December 10, declared that the treaty fails, in his view,
because the numbers are not low enough. He says that ``500 or fewer''
would be sufficient.
Well, will this example of reducing our weapons cause other nations
to follow our good example? I think not. If Iran and North Korea risk
their security and their financial soundness on building a nuclear
arsenal today, will our example cause them to stop? I think not.
Rather, I must conclude it will embolden them. As our weapon numbers
fall lower and lower, these rogue nations can begin to see clearly
their way to being a peer nuclear competitor of what is now the world's
greatest military power. Why would we want to encourage them in that
fashion? I think it is a risky goal.
Thus, to the extent that the treaty is an effort to advance the
stated goals of this administration--a nuclear-free world--the treaty
will be counterproductive and dangerous, I think. If that is what it is
about, it is counterproductive, and it will enhance and encourage other
nations to have nuclear weapons, and any country that has advanced
under our nuclear umbrella who does not now have nuclear weapons may
decide they have to have their own, further proliferating nuclear
weapons.
At the Halifax International Security Forum a few weeks ago,
supported by the German Marshall Fund, Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy Michele Flournoy repeated the administration's goal of zero
nuclear weapons, and further stated, ``It is a vision. It's an
aspiration.'' She acknowledged, ``It may not happen in our lifetimes.''
I can tell you it is not happening in our lifetimes, with a high degree
of certainty.
The name of the panel, by the way, had a little bit of an irony to
it. It was ``A World Without Nukes, Really?'' Good question. So some of
my Democratic colleagues may say these statements about ``no nukes''
or, you know, they are just rhetoric, you have to say those things to
keep the President's political left in line. The President is not
really serious about it. It is not a real goal of his.
Well, I do not know. America leaders usually mean what they say. He
has not renounced the policy. Secretary Flournoy was repeating it a few
weeks ago at an international conference. I've got to say, a lot of
people were not too impressed with that policy, frankly, from our
allies around the world.
Even if the President is not telling us accurately what his
philosophy is, these words do not mean anything. He is throwing out
astonishing visions about what he would like to happen, the lamb lying
down with the lion. What else is he not serious about as we consider
this treaty? If one is not accurate about matters as significant as
nuclear weapons, we have a grave problem of leadership in this country.
Does it mean the President favors modernization of our stockpile? He
says so. But, in essence, he has conditioned that support on passing of
the treaty when we need to modernize the stockpile whether or not we
have a treaty.
Does this give me confidence that the President is clearheaded about
our nuclear policy when the Secretary of Defense and former Secretary
of Defense and the laboratory directors and the top military people
have, without exception, said we need to modernize our nuclear forces,
and he is only going to support it if this Congress ratifies the
treaty? I do not feel good about that. A lot of people have opposed
modernization. They think modernization is a step toward more nuclear
weapons, in their mind, and we ought to eliminate nuclear weapons, not
have more.
That is, frankly, where the President's political ancestry is. That
is where he came from politically. So forgive me if I am not real
comfortable about this. Does the President mean it when he says he has
not compromised and will not compromise our ability to deploy strategic
missile defense systems in Europe?
There is a rub here. Some in this relativistic, postmodern world may
not have the slightest concerns that our Commander in Chief's words are
ambiguous on matters such as this. They do not believe much in the
authority of words anyway. But call me old fashioned. I think words are
important. These words that I am hearing worry me. So these views that
are fantastical place a cloud of unreality over this entire process.
Secondly, I am not persuaded that this administration has not
retreated on nuclear missile defense to a significant degree. I am not
persuaded that that has not occurred. For example, the latest WikiLeaks
reveal that the administration negotiated away President Bush's plan
for a forward missile defense site in Poland in exchange for the
Russian cooperation. The New York Times summarized these cables on
November 29:
Throughout 2009, the cables show, the Russians vehemently
objected to American plans for a ballistic missile defense
site in Poland and the Czech Republic. . . . In talks with
the United States, the Russians insisted that there would be
no cooperation on other issues until the European site was
scrapped. . . . Six weeks later, Mr. Obama gave the Russians
what they wanted: he abruptly replaced the European site with
a ship-borne system.
So it makes me a bit nervous. We had a plan to place that in Europe,
a two-stage system instead of the three stage we have in the United
States, to give us redundant coverage from Iranian attack, and the
Russians did not like it.
[[Page 22300]]
They did not want a missile defense system on their border, even
though, at best, it would have only minimal support against a massive
number of missiles that they have. We were only going to put 10, I
think, in Poland. But they objected. They objected. The Bush
administration stood firm. They got the last treaty by standing firm.
Indeed, former Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith wrote an
article in one of the major newspapers, an op-ed, I think the Wall
Street Journal, saying that they said no, and eventually the Russians
agreed to sign.
He raised an important issue. I want to share this with my colleagues
whom I know believe so deeply we have to have this treaty or all kinds
of bad things will happen. Mr. Feith told the Russians: We do not have
to have a treaty with you. We do not have a treaty with other nations
that have nuclear weapons. If it is not a good treaty, we are not going
to agree to it.
Eventually the Russians agreed. He said the very same insistences,
the positions they asserted at that time against the Bush
administration that they rejected were demands acquiesced in by this
administration in this treaty.
So forgive me if I am a bit dubious about how wonderful this treaty
is. I asked the State Department about those cables, and we have not
heard any information on them. So there are many more things we need to
talk about with regard to the treaty and the overall strategic
situation we find ourselves in.
Are we making the world safer? I am worried that we are not. I am
worried that this approach may not make us safer. I am well aware that
some of our best allies are worried now about the constancy of the
United States, the commitment of the United States to a defense, even
if, God forbid, nuclear defense of our world allies, that we will not
follow through, and so they may have to have their own nuclear weapons.
I know there is a good bit more to discuss in this debate. I
encourage this body to be deliberative in its consideration of the
treaty. I am not happy that it is being shoved at this point in time. I
was so hopeful and expectant that we would be able to give a firm date
to start the debate early next year, and we could have a robust debate,
not only about the treaty but how it fits into our overall nuclear
strategic posture, what are we going to do about missile defense, what
are we going to do about updating our stockpile, and what about our
triad and delivery systems, what are we going to do about those. Now it
is being jammed in here. I understand why. They have got more votes
they think now, and the likelihood of it passing is greater now. I
think it has a realistic chance of passing next year.
But, more significantly, I think the administration wishes to avoid a
full debate about the strategic nuclear policy of the United States. If
that is successful, then I think the American people will be the
losers, as will the security of the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I wanted to ask the Senator before he leaves, it is now
1:30 in the afternoon, and we have yet to have one amendment presented
to us. I recognize there is a value to having some of these comments
help frame it, but it also can be done in the context of a specific
amendment.
I would ask the Senator if he has an amendment he is prepared to
offer that could help us move forward?
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, it is difficult to amend a treaty, as the Senator
knows, once it has been signed. There are things that can be done. I
think, first and foremost, we need to ask ourselves, is this a good
thing for the country? Will it advance our interests? I believe we need
a pretty big discussion about that and where we stand.
I know Senator Kerry has been supportive of modernization--I believe
you have--at least as this treaty has moved forward, if not in the
past. And we need to do that. But I am a bit uneasy that the President
is basically saying, if you do not pass my treaty, we are not going to
modernize, when I think modernization is critical to the security of
our country. I also want to know how it fits into our overall strategic
policy.
So that is kind of my biggest concern, I say to Senator Kerry. I do
not know that the numbers that the treaty takes us to, the reduced
numbers themselves are dangerous. Some people say they think it is a
bit dangerous, but most experts do not think so. I am not inclined to
oppose a treaty on whether it is 1,550 or 1,700 or 1,800. But I think
if it is part of a trend to take our numbers down further--perhaps you
saw Mr. Hogan's article saying it ought to be 500 or lower. That would
make me very concerned and I think would cause serious ramifications
internationally. Would you agree? If this treaty would be, say, for
500, it would definitely create some concern and angst around the
world?
Mr. KERRY. Well, let me say to my friend--and I appreciate his desire
to try to be thoughtful about what the numbers are and about the treaty
as a whole. I appreciate that. A couple of comments I want to make. No.
1, the administration is not linking modernization to the treaty. I
think it is clear now to Senator Kyl. I read a letter before the
Senator started speaking from the directors of the three laboratories
expressing their satisfaction and gratitude with the levels of funding
that have been put in there.
I acknowledge that Senator Kyl was correct in finding some
inadequacies in the original funding levels, and the administration, in
good faith, has made up for those. What happened over in the House,
happened over in the House. It was not instigated by the
administration. In fact, the administration has countered that and made
it clear that modernization is necessary as a matter of modernizing, in
order to keep our arsenal viable.
The second point I wish to make to the Senator, I hope the Senator
does not vote against this treaty because he thinks somehow this is a
step to some irresponsible slippery slide that takes us to ``zero''
nuclear weapons without all of the other things that very intelligent,
thoughtful statesmen have talked about in the context of less nuclear
weapons.
But I should point out to the Senator, Dr. Henry Kissinger, who is an
advocate for this concept, not as something we are going to do tomorrow
or in the next, you know, 10 years perhaps, 20 years, 30 years, but as
an organizing principle, as a way of beginning to think differently
about how we resolve conflicts--because whatever you do that moves you
toward a world of less nuclear weapons, because we have to get 67 votes
here, clearly would build the kind of consensus that says we are doing
things that make us safer. So it would have to be accompanied by the
other country's transparency, by other countries taking part.
It would also, I would say to the Senator, almost necessarily have to
be accompanied by something that today is way out of reach, which is a
kind of restraint on conventional weapon growth and involvement and the
way in which we try to resolve conflicts between countries.
It is no accident that George Shultz, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn, as
well as both of the 2008 Presidential nominees, Senator McCain and
President Obama, have all agreed this is a principle worth trying to
move toward. One thing is for certain: The road to a reduced number of
nuclear weapons in the world, which would reduce the amount of
fissionable material potentially available to terrorists, certainly
doesn't pass through a nuclear Tehran. So if we are going to have our
bona fides to be able to leverage North Korea and Iran, we need to at
least prove we can put together a bilateral agreement between the two
countries that have 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.
I would hope my colleague would not view this--given all of the
signoffs that have accompanied it, from our national security
establishment, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from military leaders,
from the national intelligence community, from our laboratory
directors, our strategic commanders--all of them have agreed 1,550, the
current number of launchers we have, the 800--this is going to permit
the United States to
[[Page 22301]]
maintain the advantages we feel we have today.
I hope my colleague would look hard at sort of how Henry Kissinger
and George Shultz and Bill Perry have framed this concept of moving in
that direction as an organizing principle. I don't expect it in my
lifetime. I doubt the Senator does. But I wouldn't vote against this
treaty that provides a window into what the Russians are doing,
provides verification, reduces the threat, and creates stability. I
wouldn't link the two, and I would hope the Senator would not.
I see the Senator from Arizona has arrived.
Mr. SESSIONS. May I ask, I believe earlier today the Senator made the
point:
Make no mistake, we are not going to amend the treaty
itself. We are willing to accept resolutions that don't kill
the treaty.
I think I understand that. But I do assert that, as we both know,
amending a treaty is not something that is easily done. So we have to
deal with whether we think the treaty is helpful. We can do some things
through the amendment process to make it more palatable and acceptable
to people who have concerns. I do not dispute that. But I do believe
that, fundamentally, this day ought to be about discussing the overall
strategic impact of the treaty.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. We have incorporated into the
resolution of ratification some 13 different declarations,
understandings, and conditions. We certainly would welcome more if they
are constructive and are not duplicitous. We have already addressed the
missile defense issue, the rail-mobile issue, the verification issue.
All of those have been addressed. But I welcome and look forward to
working with the Senator in the next days to see if we can do that.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are discussing the New START treaty at
this time. I look forward to continued debate and discussion on this
vital and important national security issue. I wish to, however, remind
colleagues that, as with any other issue that relates to this treaty
and the Russians, it can't be totally considered in a vacuum. Events
that have transpired in the last several years in Russia should bring
great concern and pause to all of us.
I will speak about the situation in Russia today and specifically the
continued imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate,
Platon Lebedev, and the imminent verdict by a Russian judge to likely
extend that imprisonment which was delayed from yesterday to December
27. If we needed any more reason to know what verdict is coming, this
is it.
The Russian Government seems to be trying to bury some inconvenient
news by issuing it 2 days after Christmas and after this body will
probably be finished debating the possible ratification of a treaty
with the Russian Federation. Some may see this as evidence that the
Russian Government is accommodating U.S. interests and desires. I would
be more inclined to believe that if these prisoners were set free.
Until that time, I will continue to believe that when Prime Minister
Putin says Khodorkovsky should sit in jail, as he said yesterday, that
this is exactly the verdict the Russian court will deliver.
The fact is, the political fix has been in for years on this case.
Mr. Khodorkovsky built one of the most successful companies in post-
Soviet Russia. And while I am under no illusions that some of these
gains may have been ill-gotten, the subsequent crimes committed against
him by the Russian State have exceeded the boundaries of human decency,
equal and lawful justice, and the God-given rights of man.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in
Yahoo from yesterday that says ``Russia's Putin: Khodorkovsky `should
sit in jail'.'' That is what the Prime Minister of Russia said about an
ongoing judicial situation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Yahoo! News]
Russia's Putin: Khodorkovsky `Should Sit in Jail'
(By Lynn Berry, Associated Press)
Moscow.--Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared
Thursday that former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a
proven criminal and ``should sit in jail,'' a statement
denounced as interference in the trial of a Kremlin foe whose
case has come to symbolize the excesses of Putin's rule.
Putin's judgment gave ammunition to government opponents
who claim Khodorkovsky is being persecuted by Putin and his
allies.
Khodorkovsky is serving an eight-year sentence after being
convicted of tax fraud and is awaiting a verdict in a second
trial on charges of stealing oil from his own oil company
that could keep him in prison for many more years.
Putin was in his first term as president when Khodorkovsky,
then Russia's richest man, was arrested in 2003 after funding
opposition parties in parliament and challenging Kremlin
policies.
Khodorkovsky's lawyers and supporters said Putin's comments
during his annual televised call-in show would put undue
pressure on the judge as he deliberates and exposed Putin's
role as a driving force behind the seven-year legal
onslaught.
One of his lawyers, Karinna Moskalenko, said Putin's
statements indicate that the judge will find Khodorkovsky
guilty.
In addition to saying Khodorkovsky was guilty of economic
crimes, Putin once again suggested the former oligarch had
ordered the killings of people who stood in his way as he
turned Yukos into Russia's largest oil company. Khodorkovsky,
whose oil company was taken over by the state, has not been
charged with any violent crime.
Putin reminded television viewers that the former Yukos
security chief was convicted of involvement in several
killings.
``What? Did the security service chief commit all these
crimes on his own, at his own discretion?'' he said.
Putin said Khodorkovsky's present punishment was ``more
liberal'' than the 150-year prison sentence handed down in
the U.S. to disgraced financier Bernard Madoff, who cheated
thousands of investors with losses estimated at around $20
billion.
``Everything looks much more liberal here,'' Putin said.
``Nevertheless, we should presume that Mr. Khodorkovsky's
crimes have been proven.''
Speaking to reporters afterward, Putin said he had been
referring to the conviction in the first case, a distinction
he did not make during the televised show.
He insisted the second case would be considered objectively
by the court, but said it involved even higher monetary
damages than the first case, implying no leniency should be
shown.
``I believe that a thief should sit in jail,'' Putin said.
With more than a touch of sarcasm, Khodorkovsky's lead
lawyer, Vadim Klyuvgant, thanked Putin for speaking his mind
``because it directly and clearly answers the question of
who, with what aims and with what power is putting pressure
on the court as the judge is deliberating.''
Judge Viktor Danilkin is scheduled to begin reading the
verdict on Dec. 27.
If convicted, Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev
face prison sentences of up to 14 years, which could keep
them in prison until at least 2017.
Putin has not ruled out a return to the presidency in 2012,
and critics suspect him of wanting to keep Khodorkovsky
incarcerated until after the election.
The case has been seen as a test for President Dmitry
Medvedev, who has promised to establish independent courts
and strengthen the rule of law in Russia.
Mr. McCAIN. Quoting:
I believe that a thief should sit in jail.
With more than a touch of sarcasm, Khodorkovsky's lead
lawyer, Vadim Klyuvgant, thanked Putin for speaking his mind
``because it directly and clearly answers the question of
who, with what aims and with what powers is putting pressure
on the court as the judge is deliberating.''
In 2003, when Mr. Khodorkovsky became increasingly outspoken about
the Russian Government's abuses of power, its growing authoritarianism,
corruption, and disregard for the law, he was arbitrarily arrested and
detained under political charges. His company was stolen from him by
authorities, and he was thrown in prison through a process that fell
far short of the universal standards of due process. Mr. Khodorkovsky
was held in those conditions for 7 years, and when his sentence was
drawing to a close, new charges
[[Page 22302]]
were brought against him which were then even more blatantly political
than the previous ones.
Mr. Khodorkovsky, along with Mr. Lebedev, was charged with stealing
all of the oil of the company that had been so egregiously stolen from
them. The trial has now concluded. So what will happen next? It seems
rather clear. After spending 7 years in prison, Mr. Khodorkovsky will
likely face many more, which I fear is tantamount to a death sentence.
This case is a travesty of justice for one man, but it is also a
revealing commentary on the nature of the Russian Government today.
Yesterday, the Senate voted to take up the New START treaty. To be
sure, this treaty should be considered on its merits to our national
security. But it is only reasonable to ask--and I ask my colleagues
this question--if Russian officials demonstrate such a blatant
disregard for the rights and legal obligations owed to one of their own
citizens, how will they treat us and the legal obligations, be it this
treaty or any other, they owe to us?
What is worse, the sad case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky now looks like
one of more modest offenses of corrupt officials ruling Russia today.
I would like to quote from a recent article in the Economist dated
December 9, 2010, entitled ``Frost at the core,'' which I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Economist, Dec. 9, 2010]
Frost at the Core
dmitry medvedev and vladimir putin are presiding over a system that can
no longer change
On December 15th, in a small courtroom in central Moscow,
Viktor Danilkin, a softly spoken judge, is due to start
delivering a verdict. Its symbolism will go far beyond the
fate of the two defendants, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon
Lebedev, former principal shareholders in the Yukos oil
company. Both men have been in jail since 2003 on charges of
tax evasion. Their sentences expire next year. In order to
keep them in prison, the government has absurdly charged them
with stealing all the company's oil.
Neither the first nor the second trial had much to do with
the rule of law. But there the similarity ends. In 2003 Mr.
Khodorkovsky personified the injustice and inequality of the
1990s, when tycoons wielded enormous power over a state that
could not even pay pensions and salaries on time. Seven years
on, Mr. Khodorkovsky is a symbol of the injustices
perpetrated by corrupt bureaucrats and members of the
security services, who epitomise the nexus between power and
wealth. As Mr. Khodorkovsky said in his final statement,
``They turned, us, ordinary people, into symbols of a
struggle against lawlessness. This is not our achievement. It
is theirs.''
The chances that Mr. Khodorkovsky will be found not guilty
are slim. If he were, it would be a sign that the system of
Vladimir Putin, Russia's former president and current prime
minister, was beginning to come apart. That system, which
tolerates corruption and violence, has just received the
endorsement of FIFA, which has awarded Russia the prize of
hosting the 2018 football World Cup. But its evolution had
much to do with Mr. Khodorkovsky's story.
In the 1990s, when businessmen bribed the courts, both
parties knew they were in the wrong. After Mr. Khodorkovsky's
case, a judge taking instructions from a bureaucrat felt he
was in the right. The Russian state not only flagrantly
flouted the law for its own interests, but also sent a
powerful signal to its bureaucracy that this practice was now
okay.
According to Alexander Oslon, a sociologist who heads the
Public Opinion Foundation in Moscow, Mr. Putin's rule ushered
in a breed of ``bureaucrat-entrepreneurs''. They are not as
sharp, competitive or successful as the oligarchs of the
1990s, but they are just as possessed by ``the spirit of
money'' in Mr. Olson's phrase, the ideology that has ruled
Russia ever since communism collapsed. By the end of the
1990s the commanding heights of the economy had been largely
privatised by the oligarchs, so the bureaucrat-entrepreneurs
began to privatise an asset which was under-capitalised and
weak: the Russian state.
Unlike businessmen of Mr. Khodorkovsky's type, who made
their first money in the market, the bureaucrat-entrepreneurs
have prospered by dividing up budget revenues and by
racketeering. ``Entrepreneurs'' who hire or work for the
security services or the police have done especially well,
because they have the ultimate competitive advantage: a
licence for violence.
No one worries about conflicts of interest; the notion does
not exist. (Everyone remembers the special privileges given
to party officials for serving the Soviet state.) As American
diplomats are now revealed to have said, the line between
most important businesses and government officials runs from
blurry to non-existent. Putting Mr. Khodorkovsky in jail, or
awarding a large contract to one's own affiliated company,
could be justified as a public good. Indeed, more people were
in favour of locking up Mr. Khodorkovsky, even though they
knew it would benefit only a few Kremlin bureaucrats.
In 1999 the oil price started to climb and petrodollars
gushed into Russia, changing the mindset of the political
class. Mr. Oslon points out that the most frequently used
word in Mr. Putin's state-of-the-nation address in 2002 was
``reform'' and its variants. A few years later the most
frequently used word was ``billion''. Divvying up those
billions has become the main business in Russia. Corruption
no longer meant breaking the rules of the game; it was the
game.
Unlike private businessmen, who started to invest in their
core businesses (Yukos among them) in the late 1990s,
bureaucrat-entrepreneurs have little incentive to do so.
Their wealth is dependent on their administrative power,
rather than newfangled property rights. The profits are often
stashed away in foreign bank accounts or quickly spent: on
luxury property in European capitals, or on their children's
education in British private schools. All this is inevitably
accompanied by anti-Western rhetoric and claims of Russia's
resurgence.
The message of Krasnodar
On November 4th, National Unity Day, in the small town of
Kushchevskaya in the Krasnodar region, eight adults and four
children were killed in a house. They were the family of a
wealthy farmer and his guests.
The youngest child, nine months old, suffocated when the
killers set the house alight.
Terrible murders can happen in any country. This one stood
out because it was the work not of a maniac but of a well-
established criminal gang, which has terrorised the region
for nearly 20 years. More than 200 trained thugs do its work,
including dozens of murders and rapes. Its boss, Sergei
Tsapok, was a deputy in the local council and had links with
the chief law-enforcement agencies, the tax police and local
government. The gang first emerged in the early 1990s,
racketeering and carving up valuable plots of land. In 2002
it began to ``legalise'' and incorporate itself into local
state power structures.
Mr. Tsapok's agricultural firm received massive state
credits and grants. It employed the head of security of the
local prosecution service as its in-house lawyer. In 2008 Mr.
Tsapok boasted that he was among the guests at the
inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as Russia's president,
according to Novaya Gazeta, an independent Russian newspaper.
The gang ran the region not only under the gaze of
government, but also in its stead.
When the chief Russian investigator into the murders
arrived a few days later from Moscow, he was besieged by
complaints from all over the region. Alexander Tkachev, the
governor, seemed dismayed by all the fuss: ``Such a crime
could have happened in any part of the region. Unfortunately,
such gangs exist in every municipality.'' Despite what
happened, he remains in his job.
In the past such bespredel (extreme lawlessness) was mostly
restricted to Chechnya and a few other parts of the north
Caucasus. But violence has spread, and Kushchevskaya has
caused horror not only because of the child victims, but
because it presented a threatening model of a crumbling
state. The government used to mask its problems with a thick
layer of money. But as this layer gets thinner, the problems
become more obvious.
a shrinking pie
Corruption was also excessive in the 2000s, but it was
compensated for by strong economic growth and fast-rising
incomes. This, and soothing television pictures, created a
sense of stability. But the global financial crisis hit the
Russian economy harder than that of any other large
industrial country, exposing its structural weakness. As
Vladislav Inozemtsev, an economist, argues in a recent
article, the improvement in living standards was achieved at
the cost of massive under-investment in the country's
industry and infrastructure. In the late Soviet era capital
investment in Russia was 31% of GDP. In the past ten years
Russia's capital investment has been, on average, about 21.3%
of GDP. (For comparison, the figure over the same period in
China was 41%.)
Despite rising oil prices and a construction boom, Mr.
Inozemtsev says, in the post-Soviet period Russia has built
only one cement factory and not a single oil refinery. The
Soviet Union used to build 700km of railways a year. Last
year, it built 60km. ``We have lived by gobbling up our own
future,'' he argues. Peter Aven, the head of Alfa Bank, the
largest private bank in the country, thinks today is like the
late Soviet period: ``Once again the main source of wealth is
oil and gas, which is being exchanged for imported goods. The
state today is no better than Gosplan was in the Soviet
Union.''
Russia's trade surplus is shrinking. As imports grow, so
does pressure on the rouble.
[[Page 22303]]
The government is now running a budget deficit. Mr. Aven says
Russia's budget balances at an oil price of $123 a barrel.
Three years ago it balanced at $30. For all the talk of
stability, only 6% of the population can imagine their future
in more than five years' time, which may explain why only 2%
have private pension plans.
To keep up his approval rating, particularly among
pensioners and state workers, Mr. Putin has had to increase
general government spending to nearly 40% of GDP (see chart).
To pay for this he has raised taxes on businesses, which are
already suffocating from corruption and racketeering. While
Russia's peers in the BRIC group of leading emerging
economies are coping with an inflow of capital, $21 billion
fled out of Russia in the first ten months of the year.
Unlike foreign firms such as Pepsi (see article), Russia's
private firms are too nervous to invest in their own economy.
That economy is growing by less than 4% a year. This would
be respectable in many Western countries, but as Kirill
Rogov, an economic and political analyst, argues, it is not
enough to sustain the political status quo. When the pie of
prosperity was expanding, dissension within the elite made no
sense. However, now that money is scarcer and the world is
divided into ``Mr. Putin's friends and everyone else'', as
one businessman put it, conflicts are inevitable.
A sense of injustice is now growing in many different
groups. Private businessmen and even oligarchs complain about
the lack of rules and bureaucratic extortion. Middle-class
Muscovites moan that officials in their black luxury cars,
with their flashing blue lights, push them off the road and
occasionally run them over. People in the north Caucasus feel
they are treated like aliens rather than Russian citizens.
Everyone is fed up with corruption.
The discontent does not register in Mr. Putin and Mr.
Medvedev's joint popularity ratings, which remain at 70%. But
growing numbers of the elite feel that the present political
and economic model has been exhausted and the country is fast
approaching a dead end. ``The problem is not that this regime
is authoritarian, the problem is that it is unfair, corrupt
and ineffective,'' says one leading businessman. ``Corruption
will erode and bring down this system.'' The paradox is that
few Russian government officials disagree with this.
At a recent government-sponsored conference on Russia's
competitiveness, everyone agreed that the system does not
work. Russian politicians sometimes sound like opposition
leaders, and Mr. Medvedev makes pledges as if he were a
presidential candidate. If Mr. Putin has stopped lamenting
the level of corruption in Russia, as he used to, it is only
because he believes this is futile and that other countries
are the same.
In a democracy, such confessions of impotence from top
officials would probably prompt their resignations. In Russia
it leads to a discussion of how best to preserve the system.
Which tactics work better will be the subject of a
conversation between Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev when they
decide, probably next summer, which of them will become
Russia's next president. As Mr. Putin said, the decision will
be made on the basis of what is best for Russia. (``Think of
them as co-heads of a corporation,'' Mr. Oslon suggests.) The
aim is the same, but the styles vary.
Mr. Medvedev calls for innovation and technical
modernisation to revive growth. He is appealing through the
internet to the most enterprising people in Russia, and is
inviting Russian and foreign scientists to come and innovate
in a specially created zone, called Skolkovo, which would be
protected against the rest of the country by a high security
wall and honest police.
The president, who is keen to keep his job after 2012, will
try to persuade Mr. Putin that it is in the interests of the
corporation, and of Mr. Putin as one of its main
stakeholders, for his predecessor not to return to the
Kremlin. He could cite the need for better relations with the
West to legitimise the financial interests of the Russian
elite, and the inefficiency of the security services as a
support base. But even if Mr. Putin would like to retire, can
he afford to?
The two men may belong to the same system and want the same
thing, but they are formed by different experiences. Mr.
Putin, despite his belligerence about the 1990s, is the very
epitome of that period. He operates by informal rules and
agreements rather than laws and institutions. He became
president at the end of a revolutionary decade, when the job
carried more risks than rewards. He is cautious, dislikes
making decisions and rarely fires anyone, putting loyalty and
stability above all else.
Mr. Medvedev, on the other hand, was installed as president
after nearly a decade of stability, when the political
landscape was cleared of opposition and the coffers were full
of money. He is a stickler for formality, though he is a lot
less careful, and makes decisions that can destabilise the
system--such as firing the previous mayor of Moscow, Yuri
Luzhkov. But he is also weaker than Mr. Putin, and may not be
able to hang on to power.
The likeliest outcome is that the two will try to preserve
their tandem one way or another. Kremlin officials dismiss
talk of dead ends as pointless whining and alarmism from
liberals. The prevailing view is that the system works and
everything will carry on as usual. That may be wrong,
however. ``Mr. Putin can return to the Kremlin technically,
but he cannot do so historically,'' Mr. Rogov argues. His
popularity may be buoyant, but the historic period of
stabilisation and restoration which he initiated is coming to
an end. Mr. Putin always took great care over symbols,
marking the beginning of his rule with the restoration of the
Soviet anthem. At the time, it was a symbol of continuity and
greatness. Today it sounds increasingly archaic.
As stability turns into stagnation, Mr. Putin is becoming a
symbol of the bygone 2000s. Mr. Medvedev, on the other hand,
with his tweets and his iPad, has absorbed hopes of change
among the younger, more restless set. He has done nothing to
justify this; as a recent editorial in Vedomosti, a Russian
business daily, argued, ``Medvedev is strong not because of
his deeds, but because he rides an illusion.'' Nonetheless,
the wish for change is real.
Dissenting voices
This is reflected in the media. Glossy lifestyle magazines
are becoming politicised; one has even put Lyudmila Alexeeva,
an 83-year-old human-rights activist, on its cover. The
beating-up of Oleg Kashin, a journalist from Kommersant, a
mainstream newspaper, troubled the well-heeled more than the
murder of Anna Politkovskaya did three years ago, precisely
because Mr. Kashin--unlike her--did not oppose the regime or
write about Chechnya. And recently Leonid Parfenov, a stylish
Russian TV presenter, caused a scandal when, at an awards
ceremony attended by Russia's most powerful media executives,
he said that Russian television reporters have turned into
servile bureaucrats. ``Our television'', he said, ``can
hardly be called a civic or public political institution.''
It was not what Mr. Parfenov said that was news, but the
fact that he said it at all. He used to steer clear of words
like ``civic'' or ``duty'', and argue that Russian liberalism
was not found in politics, but in fashion boutiques and
Moscow coffee shops. Many young, successful Russians shared
his view. Mr. Parfenov's speech reflects a change of mood
among them, as well as a growing interest in politics.
Although state television has enormous sway over older
Russians, the young, urban and educated get their news and
views from the internet, which remains largely free of
Kremlin propaganda.
Stanislav Belkovsky, a political commentator, sees a
similarity between Russia's situation and the period of
Perestroika reform under Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980s.
As then, a large part of the elite has realised that the
system is ineffective and is no longer willing to defend it.
When ordinary people come to share this view, the system is
in grave danger.
That moment may be some time away: the Russian economy is
more flexible than the Soviet one, the elite is more diverse,
the borders are open and there are safety valves to release
dissatisfaction. But as Mr. Khodorkovsky said in a recent
interview from jail, the tensions between the declining
performance of the Russian economy, the expectations of the
population and the corruption of the bureaucracy will erode
the system, whoever is president.
With Mr. Putin in power, Russia may suffer deep stagnation,
but a collapse of the system would be all the more dramatic.
With Mr. Medvedev stagnation may be shorter, but his grip on
power would be weaker. This may matter little in the long
run, but it makes a big difference for Russians living now--
not least for Mr. Khodorkovsky himself.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. Khodorkovsky, the Economist writes, is a symbol of
the injustices perpetrated by corrupt bureaucrats and members of the
security services who epitomize the nexus between power and wealth.
The article goes on to describe the staggering scale of corruption in
Russia today.
Shortly before his arrest Mr. Khodorkovsky estimated state
corruption at around $30 billion, or 10% of the country's
[gross domestic product]. By 2005 the bribes market,
according to INDEM, a think-tank, had risen to $300 billion,
or 20% of GDP. As Mr. Khodorkovsky said in a recent
interview, most of this was not the bribes paid to traffic
police or doctors, but contracts awarded by bureaucrats to
their affiliated companies.
I go on to quote from the Economist:
Their wealth is dependent on their administrative power,
rather than newfangled property rights. The profits are often
stashed away in foreign bank accounts or quickly spent: on
luxury property in European capitals, or on their children's
education in British private schools.
Unsurprisingly, surveys now show that the young would
rather have a job in the government or a state firm than in
private business. Over the past 10 years, the number of
bureaucrats has gone up by 66%, from 527,000 to 878,000, and
the cost of maintaining such a
[[Page 22304]]
state machine has risen from 15% to 20% of GDP.
Other figures point to the same conclusion as the Economist. In its
annual index of perceptions of corruption, Transparency International
ranked Russia 154 out of 178 countries--perceived as more corrupt than
Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries
to be better places to do business than Russia. One of those countries
is Georgia, which the World Bank ranks as the 12th best country to do
business with.
President Medvedev speaks often and at times eloquently about the
need for Russia to be governed by the rule of law. Considering the
likely outcome of Mr. Khodorkovsky's show trial, it is not surprising
that President Medvedev himself has lamented that his anticorruption
campaign has produced, in his words, ``no results.''
Russians who want better for their country and dare to challenge the
corrupt bureaucrats who govern it are often targeted with impunity.
One case that has garnered enormous attention both within Russia and
around the world is that of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax attorney for an
American investor who uncovered the theft by Russian officials of $230
million from the Russian treasury. Because of Mr. Magnitsky's
relentless investigation into this corruption, the Russian Interior
Ministry threw him in prison to silence him. He was deprived of clean
water, left in a freezing cell for days, and denied medical care. After
358 days of this abuse, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37. Not only has
the Russian Government held no one accountable for his death, several
officials connected to Mr. Magnitsky's imprisonment and murder have
actually received commendations.
Then there is the tragic case of Russia's last remaining independent
journalist. Last month, Russian journalist Oleg Kashin, who had written
critically of a violent youth movement associated with the Kremlin, was
beaten by attackers who broke his jaw, both his legs, and many of his
fingers--a clear political message to other writers.
No one has been charged for this crime, and writing in the New York
Times this Sunday, Mr. Kashin suggests that no one ever will.
``[I]t seems indubitable,'' he writes, ``that the atmosphere of
hatred and aggression, artificially fomented by the Kremlin, has become
the dominant fact in Russian politics, the reset in relations with the
United States and talk of economic modernization notwithstanding. . . .
A man with a steel rod is standing behind the smiling politicians who
speak of democracy. That man is the real defender of the Kremlin and
its order. I got to feel that man with my own head.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2010]
A Beating on My Beat
(By Oleg Kashin)
On the night of Nov. 6, I was attacked by two young men
armed with steel rods. The assault occurred a few feet from
the entrance to my house, which is just a 10-minute walk from
the Kremlin.
A month later, I am still in the hospital. One of my
fingers has been amputated, one of my legs and both halves of
my jaw have been broken, and I have several cranial wounds.
According to my doctors, I won't be able to go back to my job
as a reporter and columnist at Kommersant, an independent
newspaper, until spring.
A few hours after the attack, President Dmitri Medvedev
went on Twitter to declare his outrage, and he instructed
Russia's law enforcement agencies to make every effort to
investigate this crime. But no one has been apprehended, and
I do not expect that the two young men will ever be
identified or caught.
Three theories quickly emerged about who was behind the
attack--which was, I believe, an assassination attempt. The
first holds that it was the municipal authorities of Khimki,
a town between Moscow and St. Petersburg. I had written
several articles criticizing a proposed highway between the
two cities that would run through the town, something the
local authorities want but many residents oppose.
The second theory is that it was Andrei Turchak, the
governor of the Pskov region, who was upset by a blog posting
of mine arguing that he had his position only because of his
ties to the Kremlin.
And the third theory is that the perpetrators came from
Nashi, a youth movement I have criticized. The group's
appearance on the public scene has accompanied a new level,
and acceptance, of violence in Russian politics; members are
called ``Nashists'' by their opponents, as a pun on
``fascists,'' for good reason.
Nashi is closely tied to the Kremlin, which founded the
group five years ago in response to fears that Ukraine's
Orange Revolution could inspire similar uprisings in Russia.
When newspapers reported that Vasily Yakemenko, its former
leader and now the minister for youth affairs, might have
been involved in the attack on me, he was granted an
unscheduled meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Was
this meant to show that the authorities didn't share such a
suspicion--or that they didn't care whether the accusation
was true?
What strikes me about the theories is that, in each case,
the ultimate perpetrator is the state. And for some reason
that seems acceptable to most Russians: practically no one
here has questioned the right of the state to resort to
extra-legal violence to maintain power, even against
journalists.
I don't mean to compare myself to Anna Politkovskaya or
Paul Klebnikov, journalists who were killed probably because
of their investigative work. But in a way the attack against
me is more disturbing. Unlike most of the reporters who have
been attacked in Russia in recent years, I have not engaged
in any serious investigations into corruption or human rights
abuses. I have not revealed any secret documents or irritated
influential figures with embarrassing material.
What I have done, though, is criticize Nashi. Indeed, all
this year I have called attention to the violence that
accompanies the group's every public activity. Even at their
legally sanctioned events the members trample--and this is no
exaggeration; they literally stomp with their feet--portraits
of Russia's ``enemies,'' including human rights activists,
politicians and journalists.
I also believe they were the organizers of anonymous acts
aimed at the opposition: fabricated video clips, hacker
attacks and physical assaults. Some of them were symbolic;
for example, an unidentified man once hit Garry Kasparov, the
former world chess champion who is an opposition leader, on
the head with a chess board.
But even when there is strong evidence of official Nashi
involvement, members have gone unpunished. In the summer of
2005 a group of hooligans with baseball bats invaded an
opposition meeting and savagely beat the participants. The
police detained the attackers, and a list of their names,
including some ``Nashists,'' appeared in the papers. But all
of the detainees were immediately released, and the case has
never gone to court.
Nobody knows for certain whether there is a direct link
between the flourishing of Nashi and the increased violence
against critics of the state. But it seems indubitable that
the atmosphere of hatred and aggression, artificially
fomented by the Kremlin, has become the dominant fact in
Russian politics, the ``reset'' in relations with the United
States and talk of economic modernization notwithstanding.
A man with a steel rod is standing behind the smiling
politicians who speak of democracy. That man is the real
defender of the Kremlin and its order. I got to feel that man
with my own head.
Mr. McCAIN. An earlier New York Times news story, dated May 17 of
this year, and entitled ``Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in
Blood,'' describes the fate of other independent journalists in Russia.
One is Mikhail Beketov, who exposed corruption in a Moscow suburb. This
is what happened to him.
"Last spring, I called for the resignation of the city's
leadership,'' Mr. Beketov said in one of his final
editorials. ``A few days later, my automobile was blown up.
What is next for me?'' Not long after, he was savagely beaten
outside his home and left to bleed in the snow. His fingers
were bashed, and three later had to be amputated, as if his
assailants had sought to make sure he would never write
another word. He lost a leg. Now 52, he is in a wheelchair,
his brain so damaged that he cannot utter a simple sentence.
No one has been charged or held responsible for this crime either.
The same article mentions another journalist, Pyotr Lipatov, who was
attacked while covering an opposition rally. As he was leaving, the
article says:
[T]hree men pushed him to the ground and punched him
repeatedly on the head. ``Even when I was unconscious, they
didn't let me go,'' Mr. Lipatov said. This beating was
recorded on video by protesters. Mr. Lipatov's colleagues
used the video to track down the men who beat him. They were
police officers. While Mr. Lipatov, 28, was recovering in the
hospital, he said two other police officers visited and urged
him to sign a statement saying that he had provoked the
attack. . . .
Officials later acknowledged that police officers had been
involved in the attack, but
[[Page 22305]]
they still brought no charges. Instead, they raided Mr.
Lipatov's offices, seized computers and brought a criminal
extremism suit against him. They asserted that he had sought
to foment ``negative stereotypes and negative images of
members of the security forces.'' Fearing for his safety and
more criminal charges, he quit.
Sadly, I could go on and on like this, to say nothing of the many
unsolved murders. So I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, May 17, 2010]
Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in Blood
(By Clifford J. Levy)
Khimki, Russia.--Mikhail Beketov had been warned, but would
not stop writing. About dubious land deals. Crooked loans.
Under-the-table hush money. All evidence, he argued in his
newspaper, of rampant corruption in this Moscow suburb.
``Last spring, I called for the resignation of the city's
leadership,'' Mr. Beketov said in one of his final
editorials. ``A few days later, my automobile was blown up.
What is next for me?''
Not long after, he was savagely beaten outside his home and
left to bleed in the snow. His fingers were bashed, and three
later had to be amputated, as if his assailants had sought to
make sure that he would never write another word. He lost a
leg. Now 52, he is in a wheelchair, his brain so damaged that
he cannot utter a simple sentence.
The police promised a thorough investigation, but barely
looked up from their desks. Surveillance videos were ignored.
Neighbors were not interviewed. Information about
politicians' displeasure with Mr. Beketov was deemed
``unconfirmed,'' according to interviews with officials and
residents.
Prosecutors, who had repeatedly rejected Mr. Beketov's
pleas for protection, took over the case, but did not seem to
accomplish much more. Mr. Beketov's close colleagues said
they were eager to offer insights about who in the government
had been stung by his exposes. But no one asked.
Eighteen months later, there have been no arrests.
In retrospect, the violence was an omen, beginning a wave
of unsolved attacks and official harassment against
journalists, human rights activists and opposition
politicians around the region, which includes the Moscow
suburbs, but not the city itself. Rarely, if ever, is anyone
held responsible.
One editor was beaten in front of his home, and the
assailants seized only copies of his articles and other
material for the next day's issue, not his wallet or
cellphone. Local officials insisted that he sustained his
injuries while drunk.
Another journalist was pummeled by plainclothes police
officers after a demonstration. It was all captured on video.
Even so, the police released a statement saying that he had
hurt himself when he was accidentally pushed by the crowd.
These types of attacks or other means of intimidation,
including aggressive efforts by prosecutors to shut down news
media outlets or nonprofit groups, serve as an unnerving
deterrent. And in a few cases in recent years, the violence
in the country has escalated into contract killings.
Corruption is widespread in Russia, and government often
functions poorly. But most journalists and nonprofit groups
shy away from delving deeply into these problems.
The culture of impunity in Russia represents the most
glaring example of the country's inability to establish real
laws in the two decades since the collapse of the Soviet
Union. And this failure radiates throughout society, touching
upon ordinary men and women who are trying to carve out lives
in the new Russia, but are wary of questioning authority.
Russia's president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, has bemoaned the
country's ``legal nihilism.'' Yet under Mr. Medvedev and
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, it has persisted. And among
the major beneficiaries have been the governing party's
politicians.
Threats, Then a Beating
Boris Gromov, the governor of the Moscow region, commanded
the 40th Army during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and his
opponents believe that he governs with a general's sense of
order. Mr. Gromov, appointed by Mr. Putin, has in turn seeded
local government with fellow Afghanistan veterans, including
the Khimki mayor, Vladimir Strelchenko.
Mikhail Beketov often referred to Mr. Gromov and Mr.
Strelchenko as ``army boots,'' and did not think much of
their honesty.
Mr. Beketov was brawny like a boxer, fast-talking,
perpetually late and prone to latching onto causes. He
himself had been an officer in the army paratroops, but then
switched to journalism, working as a war correspondent in
Afghanistan and Chechnya. His experiences left him with a
distaste for overbearing military officials.
He established his newspaper, Khimkinskaya Pravda (Khimki
Truth), in 2006. He wrote regularly about what he considered
corruption among local officials, who were often members of
Mr. Putin's governing party, United Russia.
He financed the newspaper himself. It had a circulation of
only about 10,000 copies, but it garnered a large following
in Khimki, which has a population of 185,000, and the
surrounding cities, especially after Mr. Beketov grabbed hold
of two topics.
His articles resonated nationally when he questioned why
the city had demolished a monument that contained the remains
of Soviet fighter pilots. The work was done to widen a road.
And he relentlessly focused on the fate of the Khimki
forest, a pristine expanse of old-growth oaks and wild
animals, including elk and boars, improbably close to Moscow.
With little public notice, the government had planned to
build a major highway to St. Petersburg through the forest.
Mr. Beketov suspected that officials were secretly profiting
from the project.
Local officials, unaccustomed to such criticism, lashed out
publicly. Privately, Mr. Beketov received phone threats. He
asked the authorities for help, but was rebuffed, his
colleagues said. He returned home one day to discover his dog
dead on his doorstep. Then his car was blown up.
Instead of investigating the explosion, prosecutors opened
a criminal inquiry into his newspaper. His friends said that
Mr. Beketov told them that one city official had warned him
about his articles.
But he did not relent. ``You can imagine what kind of money
the authorities plan to fleece from this so-called
infrastructure,'' he wrote about the highway plan.
``For four years, I have observed our authorities,'' he
said. ``I have closely interacted with many senior officials,
including Strelchenko himself. Given how the authorities have
collected scandals with frightening regularity, I have come
to a regrettable conclusion: They are shameless.''
On a November evening in 2008, Mr. Beketov was assaulted,
most likely by several people, outside his home. He was
discovered by a neighbor the next day.
Even as Mr. Beketov later lay in a coma at the hospital, he
was not safe. A threat was phoned in: We will finish him off.
His friends and colleagues grew so alarmed that they moved
him out of the Khimki hospital to a better, more secure one
in neighboring Moscow.
Both the police and prosecutors found the case tough to
crack.
Yuliya Zhukova, a spokeswoman in the Moscow region for the
investigative committee of the prosecutor general's office,
said the office had conducted a thorough inquiry, but
ultimately had to suspend it for lack of evidence. She said
that investigators needed to interview Mr. Beketov to make
progress, but that his doctors would not allow that. (Mr.
Beketov has been unable to communicate since the attack.)
Yevgenia Chirikova, a leader of a local environmental group
who worked closely with Mr. Beketov on his articles about the
highway, said that she was eager to help, but that
investigators did not contact her.
``I waited and waited and waited,'' Ms. Chirikova said. ``I
knew that according to the rules, they are supposed to
question those closest to the victim.''
She said she decided to approach the investigators herself.
They questioned her for several hours, asking her about her
motivations for getting involved in the case, she said.
Ms. Zhukova criticized allies of Mr. Beketov and some
journalists for assuming that the attack was related to Mr.
Beketov's work.
``Very often, unfortunately, they have presented erroneous
information, and misled people regarding the course of the
investigation,'' she said.
Governor Gromov and Mayor Strelchenko declined to be
interviewed for this article. After the attack, Mr.
Strelchenko said he had played no role in it, but also
complained that it was getting too much attention.
``I don't want to say that it was good what happened to
Mikhail,'' he said. ``But I want you to separate truth from
untruth.''
Attacks on Two Editors
To the north on the M-10 highway from Khimki is a city
called Solnechnogorsk, where a newspaper, Solnechnogorsk
Forum, was publishing exposes about how local politicians
were seeking to do away with elections to maintain power.
The newspaper's editor, Yuri Grachev, is 73. In February
2009, several men assaulted him as he left his home, putting
him in intensive care for a month with a severe concussion, a
broken nose and other wounds.
Police officials first said he was drunk and fell down.
Then they said he had been the victim of a random robbery,
though all that was taken was a folder with material for the
newspaper's next issue. The muggers have not been found, and
politicians from the governing party, United Russia, said the
attack had nothing to do with Mr. Grachev's work.
``Maybe it was hooligans or maybe it was by chance,'' said
Nikolai Bozhko, the local party leader, who is also an
Afghanistan war veteran. ``The idea that it was ordered--I
don't believe that.''
Prosecutors had better luck finding evidence that
Solnechnogorsk Forum had committed libel. They have brought
charges against the paper, aiming to shut it down.
[[Page 22306]]
``The system will stop at nothing to break you,'' Mr.
Grachev said.
Farther up the M-10 Highway is Klin, where an opposition
rally was held in March 2009 to protest corruption and
increases in utility rates.
As Pyotr Lipatov, editor of an opposition newspaper called
Consensus and Truth, was leaving the rally, three men pushed
him to the ground and punched him repeatedly on the head.
``Even when I was unconscious, they didn't let me go,'' Mr.
Lipatov said.
This beating was recorded on video by protesters. Mr.
Lipatov's colleagues used the video to track down the men who
beat him. They were police officers.
While Mr. Lipatov, 28, was recovering in the hospital, he
said two other police officers visited and urged him to sign
a statement saying that he had provoked the attack. He
refused. The police then issued a statement.
``According to Lipatov, filming the meeting with his
camera, he found himself in the middle of a reactionary
crowd, was pushed and fell to the ground,'' the statement
said. Two videos of the demonstration show a different
sequence of events.
Officials later acknowledged that police officers had been
involved in the attack, but they still brought no charges.
Instead, they raided Mr. Lipatov's offices, seized computers
and brought a criminal extremism suit against him. They
asserted that he had sought to foment ``negative stereotypes
and negative images of members of the security forces.''
Fearing for his safety and more criminal charges, he quit.
``Everyone was against me--the judges, the police, the
prosecutors, everyone,'' he said. ``I took over Consensus and
Truth because I supported Prime Minister Putin's call to
fight corruption. But look what happened. The machine here
did everything possible to defeat us.''
Promises, but No Arrests
After the attacks in Khimki, Solnechnogorsk, Klin and
elsewhere, the authorities, apparently concerned that the
region had developed a reputation as a danger zone for
journalists, vowed to protect them.
``Attacks on journalists, naturally, create a special
resonance,'' Governor Gromov's office said. ``The regional
government believes that every case of an attack on
journalists must be thoroughly investigated.'' Even so, no
arrests have been made in any of the cases.
And the harassment has not let up.
On March 31, The New York Times interviewed Ms. Zhukova,
the spokeswoman for the investigators, about Mr. Lipatov. The
next day, investigators approached him in the central market
of Klin and said they urgently wanted to question him about
the beating, he said.
The session lasted more than six hours. Mr. Lipatov said
they tried to pressure him to sign a statement saying that he
had wanted to lead a mob to storm city buildings, thereby
justifying the police beating. He said he declined to do so.
Back in Khimki, a new opposition newspaper, Khimki Our
Home, was established to help continue Mr. Beketov's work.
The editor, Igor Belousov, 50, is a deeply religious man.
He publishes the Russian Orthodox calendar in his newspaper.
Before turning to journalism, he was a senior city official,
but he resigned because of what he described as pervasive
corruption.
Not long after the publication got started, Mr. Belousov
was accused of criminal libel by prosecutors and civil libel
by Mayor Strelchenko. In February, the police, without any
notice, arrested him on charges of selling cocaine. Court
documents show that the case is based exclusively on the
testimony of a drug dealer from another city who could not
recall basic details of the alleged crime.
``We used to have so many journalists here, but they have
all suffered and have all given up,'' Mr. Belousov said.
``Only I remained, and now I am giving up.''
Mr. McCAIN. Russia's beleaguered political opposition, unfortunately,
fares no better than its journalists. I have met a few times this year
with former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, who organizes peaceful
political rallies to protest a lack of democracy in Russia, a right
granted under the Russian Constitution. But these rallies are often
targeted and violently broken up by Russian authorities.
Considering that this is how Russian officials treat their fellow
citizens, it is not hard to see a profound connection between the
Russian Government's authoritarian actions at home and its aggressive
behavior abroad. The most glaring example of this remains in Georgia.
Over 2 years after its invasion, Russia not only continues to occupy 20
percent of Georgia's sovereign territory, it is building military bases
there, permitting the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia,
and denying access to humanitarian missions--all in violation of
Russia's obligations under the cease-fire agreement negotiated by
President Sarkozy. In a major recent step, President Saakashvili even
renounced the use of force to end Russia's occupation, pledging only to
defend nonoccupied Georgia in the event of a Russian attack. And yet
Russian officials responded hostilely and dismissively.
I ask my colleagues, when the Russians illegally, in violation of all
international law, occupy a sovereign nation--a sovereign nation--and
have recognized these two provinces within the international boundaries
of Georgia as independent nations, how in the world are we going to
trust them to adhere to a treaty?
I have met with the people in Georgia who have been displaced from
their homes--the sorrow and the misery inflicted on them. President
Sarkozy of France flew in and arranged for a cease-fire. The Russians
agreed to it. They are in total violation of it. They are occupying 20
percent of the country of Georgia. I think Nicaragua and one other
country have also recognized these two ``independent'' states in which
the Russians are now carrying out ethnic cleansing and stationing
Russian military. But not to worry, we can trust the Russians to adhere
to solemn treaties and abide by international law.
When we consider the various crimes and abuses of this Russian
Government, it is hard to believe that this government shares our
deepest values. This does not mean that we cannot or should not work
with the Russian Federation where possible. The world does not work
that way. What it does mean is that we need a national debate about the
real nature of this Russian Government, about what kind of a
relationship is possible with this government, and about the place that
Russia should realistically occupy in U.S. foreign policy. The Senate's
consideration of the New START treaty offers a chance to have this
debate, as does Russian accession to the WTO. Some may want to avoid
it, but we cannot.
I believe we need a greater sense of realism about Russia, but that
is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or demonization. I am an
optimist, even about Russia. I often find sources for hope in the most
hopeless of places. Mikhail Khordokovsky has languished in prison for 7
years, and on December 27, he will likely be forced to endure many
more. Yet, in a final appeal to the judge in his case, Mr. Khordokovsky
gave one of the more moving speeches I have heard in a long time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Full Transcript of His Final Words
I can recall October 2003. My last day as a free man.
Several weeks after my arrest, I was informed that president
Putin had decided: I was going to have to ``slurp gruel'' for
8 years. It was hard to believe that back then.
Seven years have gone by already since that day. Seven
years--quite a long stretch of time, and all the more so--
when you've spent it in jail. All of us have had time to
reassess and rethink many things.
Judging by the prosecutors' presentation: ``give them 14
years'' and ``spit on previous court decisions'', over these
years they have begun to fear me more, and to respect the
law--even less.
The first time around, they at least went through the
effort of first repealing the judicial acts that stood in
their way. Now--they'll just leave them be; especially since
they would need to repeal not two, but more than 60
decisions.
I do not want to return to the legal side of the case at
this time. Everybody who wanted to understand something--has
long since understood everything. Nobody is seriously waiting
for an admission of guilt from me. It is hardly likely that
somebody today would believe me if I were to say that I
really did steal all the oil produced by my company.
But neither does anybody believe that an acquittal in the
YUKOS case is possible in a Moscow court.
Notwithstanding, I want to talk to you about hope. Hope--
the main thing in life.
I remember the end of the '80s of the last century. I was
25 then. Our country was living on hope of freedom, hope that
we would be able to achieve happiness for ourselves and for
our children.
We lived on this hope. In some ways, it did materialise, in
others--it did not. The responsibility for why this hope was
not realized all the way, and not for everybody, probably
lies on our entire generation, myself included.
[[Page 22307]]
I remember too the end of the last decade and the beginning
of the present, current one. By then I was 35. We were
building the best oil company in Russia. We were putting up
sports complexes and cultural centres, laying roads, and
resurveying and developing dozens of new fields; we started
development of the East Siberian reserves and were
introducing new technologies. In short,--we were doing all
those things that Rosneft, which has taken possession of
Yukos, is so proud of today.
Thanks to a significant increase in oil production,
including as the result of our successes, the country was
able to take advantage of a favourable oil situation. We felt
hope that the period of convulsions and unrest--was behind us
at last, and that, in the conditions of stability that had
been achieved with great effort and sacrifice, we would be
able to peacefully build ourselves a new life, a great
country.
Alas, this hope too has yet to be justified. Stability has
come to look like stagnation. Society has stopped in its
tracks. Although hope still lives. It lives on even here, in
the Khamovnichesky courtroom, when I am already just this
side of 50 years old.
With the coming of a new President (and more than two years
have already passed since that time), hope appeared once
again for many of my fellow citizens too. Hope that Russia
would yet become a modern country with a developed civil
society. Free from the arbitrary behaviour of officials, free
from corruption, free from unfairness and lawlessness.
It is clear that this can not happen all by itself; or in
one day. But to pretend that we are developing, while in
actuality,--we are merely standing in one place or sliding
backwards, even if it is behind the cloak of noble
conservatism,--is no longer possible. Impossible and simply
dangerous for the country.
It is not possible to reconcile oneself with the notion
that people who call themselves patriots so tenaciously
resist any change that impacts their feeding trough or
ability to get away with anything. It is enough to recall
art. 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian
Federation--arresting businessmen for filing of tax returns
by bureaucrats. And yet it is precisely the sabotage of
reforms that is depriving our country of prospects. This is
not patriotism, but rather hypocrisy.
I am ashamed to see how certain persons--in the past,
respected by me--are attempting to justify unchecked
bureaucratic behaviour and lawlessness. They exchange their
reputation for a life of ease, privileges and sops.
Luckily, not all are like that, and there are ever more of
the other kind.
It makes me proud to know that even after 7 years of
persecutions, not a single one of the thousands of YUKOS
employees has agreed to become a false witness, to sell their
soul and conscience.
Dozens of people have personally experienced threats, have
been cut off from family, and have been thrown in jail. Some
have been tortured. But, even after losing their health and
years of their lives, people have still kept the thing they
deemed to be most important, human dignity.
Those who started this shameful case, Biryukov, Karimov and
others, have contemptuously called us ``entrepreneurs''
[<>], regarding us as low-lifes, capable of
anything just to protect our prosperity and avoid prison.
The years have passed. So who are the low-lifes now? Who is
it that have lied, tortured, and taken hostages, all for the
sake of money and out of cowardice before their bosses?
And this they called ``the sovereign's business''
[<>]!
Shameful. I am ashamed for my country.
I think all of us understand perfectly well--the
significance of our trial extends far beyond the scope of my
fate and Platon's, and even the fates of all those who have
guiltlessly suffered in the course of the sweeping massacre
of YUKOS, those I found myself unable to protect, but about
whom I remember every day.
Let us ask ourselves: what must be going through the head
of the entrepreneur, the high-level organiser of production,
or simply any ordinary educated, creative person, looking
today at our trial and knowing that its result is absolutely
predictable?
The obvious conclusion a thinking person can make is
chilling in its stark simplicity: the siloviki bureaucracy
can do anything. There is no right of private property
ownership. A person who collides with ``the system'' has no
rights whatsoever.
Even though they are enshrined in the law, rights are not
protected by the courts. Because the courts are either also
afraid, or are themselves a part of ``the system''. Should it
come as a surprise to anyone then that thinking people do not
aspire to self- realisation here, in Russia?
Who is going to modernise the economy? Prosecutors?
Policemen? Chekists? We already tried such a modernization--
it did not work. We were able to build a hydrogen bomb, and
even a missile, but we still can not build--our own good,
modern television, our own inexpensive, competitive, modern
automobile, our own modern mobile phone and a whole pile of
other modern goods as well.
But then we have learnt how to beautifully display others'
obsolete models produced in our country and an occasional
creation of Russian inventors, which, if they ever do find a
use, it will certainly be in some other country.
Whatever happened with last year's presidential initiatives
in the realm of industrial policy? Have they been buried?
They offer the real chance to kick the oil addiction.
Why? Because what the country needs is not one Korolev, and
not one Sakharov under the protective wing of the all-
powerful Beria and his million-strong armed host, but
hundreds of thousands of ``korolevs'' and ``sakharovs'',
under the protection of fair and comprehensible laws and
independent courts, which will give these laws life, and not
just a place on a dusty shelf, as they did in their day--with
the Constitution of 1937.
Where are these ``korolevs'' and ``sakharovs'' today? Have
they left the country? Are they preparing to leave? Have they
once again gone off into internal emigration? Or taken cover
amongst the grey bureaucrats in order not to fall under the
steamroller of ``the system''?
We can and must change this.
How is Moscow going to become the financial centre of
Eurasia if our prosecutors, ``just like'' 20 and 50 years
ago, are directly and unambiguously calling in a public trial
for the desire to increase the production and market
capitalisation of a private company--to be ruled a criminally
mercenary objective, for which a person ought to be locked up
for 14 years? Under one sentence a company that paid more tax
than anyone else, except Gazprom, but still underpaid taxes;
and with the second sentence it's obvious that there's
nothing to tax since the taxable item was stolen.
A country that tolerates a situation where the siloviki
bureaucracy holds tens and even hundreds of thousands of
talented entrepreneurs, managers, and ordinary people in jail
in its own interests, instead of and together with criminals,
this is a sick country.
A state that destroys its best companies, which are ready
to become global champions; a country that holds its own
citizens in contempt, trusting only the bureaucracy and the
special services--is a sick state.
Hope--the main engine of big reforms and transformations,
the guarantor of their success. If hope fades, if it comes to
be supplanted by profound disillusionment--who and what will
be able to lead our Russia out of the new stagnation?
I will not be exaggerating if I say that millions of eyes
throughout all of Russia and throughout the whole world are
watching for the outcome of this trial.
They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all
become a country of freedom and of the law, where the law
will be above the bureaucratic official.
Where supporting opposition parties will cease being a
cause for reprisals.
Where the special services will protect the people and the
law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law.
Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the
tsar. Good or evil.
Where, on the contrary, the power will truly be dependent
on the citizens, and the court--only on law and God. Call
this conscience if you prefer.
I believe, this--is how it will be.
I am not at all an ideal person, but I am a person with an
idea. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and
I do not want to die there.
But if I have to I will not hesitate. The things I believe
in are worth dying for. I think I have proven this.
And you opponents? What do you believe in? That the bosses
are always right? Do you believe in money? In the impunity of
``the system''?
Your Honour!
There is much more than just the fates of two people in
your hands. Right here and right now, the fate of every
citizen of our country is being decided. Those who, on the
streets of Moscow and Chita, Peter and Tomsk, and other
cities and settlements, are not counting on becoming victims
of police lawlessness, who have set up a business, built a
house, achieved success and want to pass it on to their
children, not to raiders in uniform, and finally, those who
want to honourably carry out their duty for a fair wage, not
expecting that they can be fired at any moment by corrupt
bosses under just about any pretext.
This is not about me and Platon--at any rate, not only
about us. It is about hope for many citizens of Russia. About
hope that tomorrow, the court will be able to protect their
rights, if yet some other bureaucrats-officials get it into
their head to brazenly and demonstratively violate these
rights.
I know, there are people, I have named them in the trial,
who want to keep us in jail. To keep us there forever!
Indeed, they do not even conceal this, publicly reminding
everyone about the existence of a ``bottomless'' case file.
They want to show: they are above the law, they will always
accomplish whatever they might ``think up''. So far they have
achieved the opposite: out of ordinary people they have
created a symbol of the struggle with arbitrariness. But for
them, a conviction is essential, so they would not become
``scapegoats''.
[[Page 22308]]
I want to hope that the court will stand up to their
psychological pressure. We all know through whom it will
come.
I want an independent judiciary to become a reality and the
norm in my country, I want the phrase from the Soviet times
about ``the most just court in the world'' to stop sounding
just as ironic today as they did back then. I want us not to
leave the dangerous symbols of a totalitarian system as an
inheritance for our children and grandchildren.
Everybody understands that your verdict in this case--
whatever it will be--is going to become part of the history
of Russia. Furthermore, it is going to form it for the future
generation. All the names--those of the prosecutors, and of
the judges--will remain in history, just like they have
remained in history after the infamous Soviet trials.
Your Honour, I can imagine perfectly well that this must
not be very easy at all for you--perhaps even frightening--
and I wish you courage!
Mr. McCAIN. This is how Mr. Khordokovsky saw the broader implications
of his trial:
I will not be exaggerating if I say that millions of eyes
throughout all of Russia and throughout the whole world are
watching for the outcome of this trial. They are watching
with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of
freedom and of the law. . . . Where supporting opposition
parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. Where the
special services will protect the people and the law, and not
the bureaucracy from the people and the law. Where human
rights will no longer depend on the mood of the tsar--good or
evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will truly be
dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law and God.
For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and I do
not want to die there. But if I have to I will not hesitate.
The things I believe in are worth dying for.
That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is a
cause for hope. Eventually maybe not this year, or next year, or the
year after that, but eventually these Russians will occupy their
rightful place as the leaders of their nation--for equal justice can be
delayed, and human dignity can be denied, but not forever.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank and congratulate the
Senator from Arizona for his important and impassioned comments about
the situation in Russia regarding the rights of Mr. Khordokovsky, and I
would associate myself with those comments.
I would say to him, though, one thing. He asked the question, how do
you trust Russia? That is precisely why this treaty is so important. A
treaty is not built on trust. No one taught us that more than in those
famous words of President Reagan: Trust, but verify. We do not have
verification today. We are sitting here with no verification. We are in
a forced position of ``trust,'' where we do not necessarily. So the
sooner we get this treaty ratified, the sooner we provide a foundation
underneath the important questions Senator McCain asked; which is, if
you cannot trust them, you have to have verification. The whole point
is, you build a relationship even in the worst of times so your
country--our country--is more stable and more protected.
During the worst of the Soviet Union, during the worst years of
confrontation, we still built up a series of treaties of arms
agreements and various other kinds of agreements in order to try to
tamp down the potential for hostility. Our hope is, obviously, that we
can do that as soon as possible here.
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. KERRY. 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to address a couple of points raised
by Senator Kyl earlier, and I will address a good number more as the
debate goes forward. Let me be very clear for the record ahead of time,
because he opened his floor remarks this morning by asserting we don't
have time to be able to consider this treaty before the end of the
year. Then he said that even though the START I treaty--which I
referred to yesterday and he specifically referred to my comments--he
said even though it was completed in 4 days--maybe 4 plus, slightly--he
said it wasn't done under the same circumstances. It didn't have to
compete with other legislation and so forth. Well, that is incorrect.
So let's set the record straight.
On the same day the Senate held a cloture vote on the START I treaty
and votes on two amendments related to the treaty, on that same day, it
voted on the final passage of a tax bill. The following day, when the
Senate voted on another amendment related to the treaty, it also agreed
to the conference report on Interior appropriations, passed the DC
appropriations bill, and debated and held two rollcall votes on the
Foreign Operations appropriations bill. The following day, it completed
the final passage vote on the START treaty. So if our predecessor
Senate had the ability to do START I while it passed three or four
other bills and held four or five separate votes on those other items,
I think it is very clear we have the ability here to be able to do this
treaty in the next days.
More importantly, the Senate has been considering this treaty not
just for the day and a half we have now been on it. We went on this
treaty yesterday and some people chose to not even come to the floor
and talk about it. Now we are back here waiting for amendments and no
one has yet chosen on the other side to come and bring an amendment. We
are ready to vote on the treaty. Fifty-eight Democratic Senators are
ready to vote on the treaty. The only thing we are waiting for is the
people who say we don't have time, who haven't brought an amendment to
the floor. I clearly smell a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy strategy
going on here. But they have to know that when flights are disrupted
next week or people can't get home, we are here to do business, and I
think it will be clear why we are not able to. So we are going to stay
here. We have made that clear. The majority leader has made it clear,
and the President and the Vice President made it clear. We are prepared
to proceed forward on any amendment with respect to understandings,
declarations, or conditions they wish to bring, and certainly to have a
robust debate.
I will also reiterate that starting in June of last year, the Foreign
Relations Committee was briefed at least five times during the talks
with the Russians. That is while the talks were going on. So we have a
group of Senators almost 60 strong who at one time or another over a
year and a half have been following these negotiations very closely.
They have been briefed down in the secure facilities. They have been
briefed by the negotiators, by the military, by the intelligence
community. The Intelligence Committee has weighed in. The Armed
Services Committee has weighed in. The National Security Group has had
an opportunity to work on this. Since the treaty was submitted, there
have been 12 open and classified hearings with more than 20 witnesses.
The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Chairman, the Commander of the Strategic Command, and the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency have all urged us to pass this
treaty.
The question is beginning to be asked not why should we do it now;
the question is why aren't we doing it now. I hope we can get some
amendments and begin to proceed.
At this point I might share a couple of other thoughts while we are
waiting for a couple of other colleagues who requested time to speak.
Senator Kyl asked the question: What do we get out of this treaty? He
juxtaposed what he said the Russians get versus what we get and seemed
to imply we are not getting very much. Well, I can assure the Senator
from Arizona that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Secretary of Defense, the leaders of our Strategic Command, and others
don't come before the Congress willy-nilly just to say, Hey, do this,
because we don't get anything out of it. Every single one of them has
articulated very clearly how they believe this treaty strengthens
America's national security, advantages our leadership in the world,
and positions us to be able to deal more effectively with Iran and
North Korea.
I have to say to my colleagues, you cede the right to come to the
floor of
[[Page 22309]]
the Senate and talk seriously about Iran and North Korea if you can't
talk seriously about the ways in which this treaty enhances our ability
to be able to put leverage on those countries. Before we pushed the so-
called reset button with Russia, we didn't have their cooperation with
respect to Iran. In fact, the Russians were very skeptical about the
intelligence we were offering and putting on the table. It wasn't until
we sat down with them face to face and went through that that they
became alarmed and they began to see, indeed, this question of how we
respond to Iran is deadly serious. As a consequence of that, Russia
joined with the United States.
I agree with my colleagues, the mere fact they are joining us is not
a reason to embrace a treaty if the treaty doesn't do all the other
things you need to provide stability and enhance your security. But
when it does all those other things and you know the consequences of
turning your back on all of those achievements is going to create a
negative relationship, you ought to try to weigh that a little bit. It
seems to me when someone's point of view comes specifically from the
economic engagement, business world, somebody such as Steve Forbes
writes that this is important to the economic component of our
relationship and to that component of the reset button, I think we can
see the breadth of impact a treaty such as this can have.
Let me say a few more words about what we do get out of this. First
of all--and this is as significant as any reason there is to be
considering this--we get nuclear stability. The fact is that nuclear
stability enhances the relationship between the countries so we can do
a lot of other things that assist in stabilizing this important
relationship in a time of crisis. The fact is, as I mentioned earlier--
we all know this--the United States and Russia possess 90 percent of
the world's nuclear weapons. Any single one of those weapons
accidentally released, stolen, or the materials in them, has the
ability to be able to destroy any American city. That is a reality
today. So both countries have decided it is in both countries'
interests to reduce the dangers that arise when you have
misunderstandings or mistrust without the verification that builds the
trust, and it is important to establish limits on those weapons in
order to achieve that.
Predictability is what comes with this treaty. Transparency is what
comes with this treaty. Accountability comes with this treaty. Without
this treaty, we don't have the right to count their warheads. With this
treaty, we have a specific counting and identifying mechanism which
will provide for greater accountability and greater stability.
Secretary Gates said very clearly: ``Russia is currently above the
treaty limits in terms of its numbers.'' So they are going to have to
take down warheads. How could it not be in the interests of the United
States to have Russia reduce the number of warheads it has today?
There are many other reasons. I see my colleague from North Dakota
has arrived. I will go through a number of these others as the
opportunity presents itself later. But I think there are a host of
reasons that are very clear, and they are part of the record already
and we will highlight them as we go forward, as to what we get out of
this treaty and why this is directly in the interests of our country,
and that is the only reason the President of the United States is
submitting this treaty to the Senate. We need to pay close attention to
the rationale our military and intelligence community has laid out to
us of why they would like this treaty--as Jim Clapper, the head of the
intelligence community has said, the sooner the better, the quicker,
the sooner, the better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in
favor of the New START treaty and to do so strongly.
First let me say I have been listening to Chairman Kerry and Senator
Lugar discuss this treaty. I think they have been clear and compelling
with respect to the arguments they have advanced. I think Senator Kerry
has made abundantly clear why this treaty is entirely in the interests
of the United States.
This treaty simultaneously takes real steps toward reducing the
number of nuclear arms in the world while also recognizing the
important role these weapons play in our national defense. Above all
else, I believe this treaty is stabilizing, which should be the goal of
any action related to nuclear weapons.
I currently serve as chairman of the Senate ICBM Coalition. North
Dakota proudly hosts the only Air Force base in the country that has
two nuclear missions. Minot Air Force Base houses both ICBMs and
nuclear bombers. As a result, North Dakotans have a special
appreciation for the awesome power of these weapons and their critical
role in our national security. While most people approach the existence
of these weapons purely from an academic standpoint, we in North Dakota
are confronted with their reality on a daily basis. Still, we as North
Dakotans are only observers. I assure my colleagues there is nothing
more sobering than visiting a missile facility and talking with the
young men and women who stand every day as the sentinels of our
security, or talking with bomber pilots as they prepare to fly halfway
around the world to patrol the skies for our protection, which I was
fortunate to do this summer. Let me say parenthetically, these young
people are extraordinary. We can be incredibly proud of the young men
and women of our military. The quality of these young people is
extraordinary. These brave men and women live the reality of nuclear
deterrence and the stability and the security it brings to our Nation.
As we approach this treaty, our first consideration must be its
implications for our ability to maintain deterrence and stability and
our overall national security. My colleagues on the ICBM Coalition and
I watched closely throughout the negotiation of this treaty. We
attended dozens of meetings and briefings to understand the impacts
this treaty would have on our national security. I even visited Russia
shortly after the treaty was presented to the world and met with many
of their top military leadership. After careful and thorough analysis
of this treaty, I can say with confidence that this treaty will
strengthen our national security. I have no doubt about that fact.
There is no question the treaty will reduce the number of launchers
that deliver nuclear weapons. This treaty has real cuts to those
forces--cuts that perhaps go even deeper than the ICBM Coalition
initially would have liked. But after speaking at length with our
military leaders, the men and women responsible for developing the
plans for the use of these weapons, it is clear to me the numbers
contained in this treaty remain sufficient to ensure the success of the
nuclear deterrence mission.
They tell me that while absolute numbers are important, there is no
precise number that assures our security and enhances our nuclear
stability. The bottom line is that we must maintain enough launchers to
have a credible and secure deterrent that promotes stability in times
of crisis. This treaty does that. It not only maintains our nuclear
deterrent, but enshrines it for coming decades.
Beyond protecting a sufficient, credible, nuclear deterrent, this
treaty advances our national security in other ways as well. President
Ronald Reagan famously said: ``Trust, but verify.'' However, for over a
year, we have been unable to inspect Russia's weapons. That is not in
our interests. It risks developments that harm our national security
going undetected or even misunderstandings that could lead to a
national security crisis. This treaty allows us to resume the extensive
and intrusive inspections that began under the first START treaty
signed by the first President Bush and ratified by this body on a vote
of 93 to 6.
This treaty also moves our nuclear security forward at a more
advanced level. Although I doubt we can ever rid the world of all
nuclear weapons, we are no longer in the midst of a nuclear arms race,
and thank God for that. By signaling our commitment to reducing
[[Page 22310]]
our nuclear arsenal while still maintaining a sufficient and credible
deterrent, this treaty will advance our interests in halting nuclear
proliferation.
The single biggest threat to our Nation would be a terrorist
organization with a nuclear weapon. This treaty will enhance our
ability to deter the development of nuclear weapons by rogue states,
and it will reduce the risk that nuclear arms races around the globe
destabilize regions of the world or create opportunities for terrorists
to acquire nuclear weapons.
Many treaty opponents argue this treaty may weaken our national
security. After closely reviewing their concerns and consulting with
experts, I do not find their arguments persuasive. Let's look at those
arguments in turn.
First, some opponents greatly inflate the importance of a short
phrase in the nonbinding preamble of the treaty to argue that it would
somehow constrain our missile defense abilities. This ignores the
remaining 17 pages of treaty text and 165 pages of protocol text. Let
me say, I have long favored missile defense. I have at many times been
in the minority on my own side on that question. If I believed this
prevented our creating a stable and secure missile defense, I would not
favor the treaty.
This treaty doesn't do that. I think it is as clear as it can be.
Other than limiting the conversion of existing ICBM launchers to
missile defense interceptors, which our military leaders have already
said would be more expensive than building new launchers--and more
important, in my view--would degrade our ICBM capability, there are no
restrictions on our missile defense--none.
Others argue the treaty will restrict future conventional missile
capabilities. That is simply not accurate. The treaty fully allows for
the use of conventional missiles. We as a nation are free to
unilaterally decide what conventional capability we want. We also hear
that Russia's tactical weapons should be included in the treaty. I have
also been one who has long favored restrictions on tactical nuclear
weapons. While I recognize the importance of addressing that threat, a
strategic arms treaty, by definition, is not the place to debate them.
Never in history have tactical weapons been included in treaties aimed
at strategic weapons. That hasn't stopped this Senate from ratifying
those agreements, nor has it stopped them for serving our national
security interests for decades.
I am quick to recognize that tactical weapons, at some point, can
become a strategic issue. The problem we confront is never before in
the context of a strategic agreement have we included tactical systems.
That is the reality.
Frankly, I would very much like to have tactical weapons included in
this treaty. That would be my preference. But that is not the reality
of the history of these negotiations.
Mr. President, some argue the number of total warheads goes too low.
However, the treaty allows nearly twice as many warheads as launchers.
More important, the number of total launchers available is a far more
important deterrence for our national security than the number of
warheads.
This treaty shows the administration understands the critical need to
maintain a sufficient number of launchers to assure continued nuclear
stability. With that said, like many other military and civilian
experts on our nuclear forces, I would be extremely wary of any efforts
to further decrease the number of our launchers. I have argued
repeatedly, as chairman of the ICBM caucus, against further reductions
at this stage. I believe that is a prudent position.
Finally, opponents argue that the administration has not committed to
an investment in the modernization of our nuclear weapons and
infrastructure. This argument completely ignores the dramatic increase
in the modernization funding the President proposed in his budget. As
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I can attest to the fact that
this increase is unprecedented. This commitment ensures that the
remaining launchers and warheads will be reliable and effective in the
event we ever need to launch them.
In short, the arguments advanced by those who claim this treaty would
hurt our national security are not convincing. That is not just my
conclusion; that is the conclusion of former Secretaries of Defense and
former Secretaries of State from both the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party and previous administrations, as well as current and
former military officers who have all publicly stated that this treaty
will advance, not harm, our national security.
Let me say I have two major Air Force bases in my State: Grand Forks
Air Force Base and Minot Air Force Base. I spend a significant amount
of time talking to our top Air Force leadership. I have consulted with
them closely on this matter, as chairman of the ICBM caucus. I am
absolutely persuaded by the best military thinking available to me that
this treaty is entirely in the national security interests of the
United States. I believe that is clear.
Mr. President, I am proud of my record in the Senate on national
security over the past 23 years, especially when it comes to our
nuclear arsenal. For generations, the young men and women who have
served at Minot and Grand Forks Air Force Bases have declared peace as
their profession, as they defended the United States from global
threats through nuclear deterrence. Though they may not be recognized
as publicly today as they were 50 years ago, the airmen who stand guard
at Minot remain at the vanguard of our Nation's most important military
mission. I would never do anything to undermine the mission they carry
out every day.
After a careful review and discussions with our Nation's best nuclear
experts, both those in uniform and those who do not wear the uniform, I
am confident this treaty makes our Nation safer and more secure.
Mr. President, I will strongly support approving this treaty, and I
call on my colleagues to join me in that effort.
I want to conclude as I began, by thanking the chairman and the
ranking member for their leadership on this matter. It is in the
highest tradition of the United States Senate. Working together in a
bipartisan--really nonpartisan--way, Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry
have provided vital leadership to this body and this country. We are
all very deeply in their debt. I express my gratitude to them both for
the statesmanlike quality they have brought to this discussion and
debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as we are waiting for other Senators coming
to the floor, hopefully, to offer amendments to the new START Treaty, I
have some interesting information that I think is relevant to our
discussion today.
As has been suggested by other Senators, the so-called Nunn-Lugar
cooperative threat reduction program, in operation for the last 19
years, has made possible, through operations of U.S. military and U.S.
contractors, working with their counterparts in Russia, the destruction
of very sizable amounts of nuclear weapons--threats that we took very
seriously in 1991, and that I hope Americans take very seriously
currently.
I have just received a report that, since October--and that is
specifically during the month of November--we have eliminated eight
more SLBMs in Russia. We have secured 10 more nuclear weapon transport
trains and neutralized 100-plus more metric tons of chemical weapons
agent.
I mention this because I have been fortunate enough to receive
monthly, at least for the last 15 years, similar reports. I have a
scoreboard in my office that, in fact, illustrates, first of all, that
7,599 strategic nuclear warheads aimed at the United States have been
deactivated through the cooperative threat reduction program. Each one
of those warheads, as I have pointed out, without being melodramatic,
may have been sufficient to completely eliminate my home city of
Indianapolis.
I take seriously the treaty we are looking at now, not so much in
terms of the numbers of reductions the treaty
[[Page 22311]]
calls for, but simply even if 1,550 warheads are left on both sides, it
is an existential problem to both of our countries that we need to take
seriously.
In any event, in addition to the 7,599 strategic nuclear warheads
deactivated, 791 ICBMs have been destroyed. These were the missiles on
which the strategic nuclear warheads were located. So by taking the
warheads off of the missiles, then taking down the 791 intercontinental
ballistic missiles and destroying them--and then 498 ICBM silos in
which these missiles were located were destroyed; 180 ICBM mobile
launchers were destroyed; 659 submarine launched ballistic missiles
were eliminated, SLBMs; 492 SLBM launchers were eliminated; 32 nuclear
submarines capable of carrying and launching ballistic missiles have
been destroyed; and 155 bombers were eliminated.
We are talking about so-called carriers. We talk in the treaty about
maybe 1,550 warheads left, 700 carriers on both sides. For those who
have not followed closely these arguments over the years, these are the
elements that have been aimed at us, and these are the vehicles that
would have made possible what they were doing.
Anecdotally, without taking the time of other Senators, I will say
that during one of my visits with former Senator Sam Nunn, from
Georgia, we went to a site in Siberia where, in fact, a missile had
been taken out of the ground. This was a missile that we were told had
10 warheads--the multiple reentry vehicle, where you could put multiple
missiles on one vehicle. We were in the silo. It was like a large tube
that had an elevator going down. I don't know on which floor we finally
arrived, but it was a floor in the silo where the Russians stayed as
guards or as watch officers. What authority they had was not clear in
terms of actually launching the missile or following the orders,
wherever they may have come from. But the impression I had from that
visit to the silo, before it was destroyed that very day--and we have
pictures of it being destroyed in the office. I explain that this is
not a nuclear weapon being destroyed, it was just a silo in the ground.
But around a table at which the Russians who were on duty sat were
pictures of American cities. These were ostensibly the targets of the
10 warheads. It has a chilling effect as you go around to discover
which cities they are.
Are they cities that I represent on the chart? The fact is, that was
the intent.
It was made known to us in the United States that our total
population--not the occasional nuclear terrorist attack--was at risk. I
mention all of this once again not as a melodramatic presentation on a
very serious treaty, but we are talking about something that is very
fundamental. During the course of the debate I have heard several of my
colleagues say--and I think they are mistaken--that right now the
American people are focused, as we all are, on how to create jobs, how
to make a difference in the economy, and how to bring new hope into the
lives of people whose confidence has been destroyed or badly shaken.
That is our paramount objective. But at the same time, these problems
occur in a world that does not necessarily wish us well and is prepared
to leave us in our domestic economy to work our problems out while the
rest of the world necessarily takes time out.
I am not one who envisions, after all of this time, a nuclear attack
using ICBMs and the carriers that we are talking about. I accept the
fact, as a practical matter, that by and large these weapons are
maintained for the security of the countries involved. But at the same
time, it seems to me to have been prudent throughout the years to have
taken the steps we could to take the warheads off of the missiles,
destroy the missiles, destroy the silos, and take up the cable in the
fields around them and, in essence, to eliminate a lot of the threat.
My scoreboard starts out with 13,300 nuclear warheads. Whether that
was the precise number, we are not sure. How did we arrive at that
number? We literally had boots on the ground. The subject was discussed
frequently today.
The dilemma I foresee, and I am not trying to borrow trouble, is that
the boots on the ground, in terms of specifics of the START treaty,
ended, as we now know, December 5, 2009. Most of us in the Senate knew
of that date. We lamented the fact that was occurring. But the fact is,
we have not been able to take action until today's debate to remedy
that. We must do so.
This is not a question of a discretionary treaty that somehow might
be held over to a more convenient time. The facts of life are that even
the program I have discovered, the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program, has diminishing results because the Russians are waiting for
work on this fundamental treaty.
In due course, even though we may appropriate in our Defense budget,
as I hope we will, substantial moneys for the Nunn-Lugar program next
year, our ability to continue to work with the Russian military,
Russian contractors outside a situation in which there is no START
treaty, and which the Russians may feel there is no expectation of a
new START treaty, could mean the monthly reports I have cited today,
and most specifically the one for November of this year, may cease
coming to my office. The number of warheads removed, the number of
missiles destroyed and so forth may simply either stop or we may have
no idea what, in fact, the Russians have decided to do.
I appreciate in past debates some of my colleagues have said--and I
think they were mistaken, but I understand their point of view--this is
Russia's problem. Why were American taxpayer funds ever involved in
helping Russians take warheads off missiles, destroying missiles,
destroying submarines, in other words to destroy weapons that were
aimed at us?
Phrased in those terms, that does not seem to be a sensible bargain;
that if you have cooperative threat reduction, and Russians now for 19
years have allowed us to work in their country on their sites where
these weapons were located, with not only transparency, an actual feel
of the hardware--the silo I was in was real. It was not by electronic
means that we found it or surveillance of leaks from diplomacy. It was
very real. So was the submarine base I was invited to visit at Sevmash
entirely out of the blue during one occasion in a visit to Russia.
Why was I asked to go there? Because they had a feeling, and
correctly, that if they presented to me the fact that there were in
existence then six Typhoon submarines, that each one of them had 200
missiles, small missiles on them, that even though Tom Clancy finally
discovered the Typhoons in the ``Hunt for Red October'' story, the
Russians may have been operating these submarines up and down our
eastern coast for as long as 20 years, whether we knew about it or
not--if you saw the submarines, the largest ever produced by any
country, and with the 200 warheads, there were chip shots into New York
or Philadelphia or any of our large eastern coast metropolitan areas--
whether citizens there ever knew there was a threat or not is
immaterial. There was--and a very substantial one. Yet the Russians
were inviting us to consider the destruction of these huge submarines
because the work is very complex, extraordinarily expensive, and it was
beyond their abilities at that point.
We could take a choice, to leave six Typhoons in the world that might
begin to cruise again, maybe someplace else, or work with them to
destroy them. I am here to say that even after several years, only
three of the six have been destroyed. It is an extremely complex
operation.
This is why we need to have treaty arrangements with the Russians. So
there are formal reasons why their government and our government might
be prepared to send our military personnel, our civilian contractors,
others who might wish to work with us on projects that we believe
mutually are important because--and I will give just one more
illustration--this is very subjective.
But on one occasion, I was surprised, although I should not have
been, that many nuclear warheads, when they are
[[Page 22312]]
removed from missiles, are not destroyed. It is difficult to destroy a
warhead, very expensive and complex, dangerous for the personnel
involved in it.
The Russians did not have very many facilities to do this. So they
put many of these warheads into caves or caverns. I was invited into
one of these caverns on one occasion. I saw warheads lying there almost
like corpses in a morgue, which is what it reminded me of. There were
small captions at the top of each of those corpses, in essence, which
at least gave--and the Russians told me in translating what was on
there--a history of that warhead: when it had been created, what sort
of servicing it had received over the years.
I mention this because these particular warheads were not inert
matter like sporting goods material. For the safety of the Russians who
were involved, they require servicing, apparently, from time to time.
One of the reasons why Russians always ask U.S. military and
contractors to remove the oldest warheads first was that none of us
have had that much of a history as to how long these warheads survive
without potential ``accidents,'' something that could make a huge
difference in this particular case for those who were in proximity to
that particular cave.
It is a crucial matter for them and for us that we find solutions to
this. This is why, I believe, there is urgency in considering the New
START treaty, urgency in doing so right now, as a matter of fact, as
rapidly as possible, and reentering Americans onto the scene in Russia
and, in reciprocal manner, accepting Russians who will be interested in
our situation. Because this is important for our two countries, and it
is important for many innocent people who were never a part of the
designs of these weapons but could, in fact, be vastly affected in the
event that we make a mistake. We will make a mistake if we fail to act
promptly, knowing what we do about the situation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have said a couple times, during the
course of our opening comments and subsequently, what a privilege it is
to be working with Senator Lugar on this treaty. I listened to him
talk, as I have heard before, about his experiences of traveling over
to Russia and going through the process of establishing this
extraordinary program. But the country and the world owe him a huge
debt of gratitude for his leadership on this issue. His vision,
together with Senator Nunn, has made a global difference, and he is
properly recognized on a global basis for that.
So I thank him for his comments calling every colleague to focus on
this linkage of the threat reduction program to the START agreement and
to the relationship that comes out of it. I know Senator Inhofe is
here. I want to give him a chance. But I would like to say a few words
before he does about the verification.
I think it is important, as we go forward, to be very clear about the
verification components of this treaty. A number of colleagues have
requested the verification regime, and we may yet have further
discussion on it. So let me make as clear as I can, this treaty has
fully satisfied our intelligence community and our military community
and our stockpile verification folks as to the verifiability of the
treaty.
Is it slightly different from what we had before with START I? The
answer is yes. But, importantly, I wish to underscore why that
difference exists because one colleague sort of raised the issue a
little while ago. I think it was Senator Kyl who talked about why it
was we might not have gotten them to do an extension of the START I
treaty. Well, the reality is, it takes all parties to be party to that
extension.
The fact is, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus all dropped out of the
nuclear game, and all those weapons were deposited into Russia. They
were all party to that original agreement. But Russia made clear to the
Bush administration, long before President Obama came to power, that
they were not going to proceed with that same system anymore, and the
reason was, they saw it as a one-sided structure. They felt they did
not get anything out of it. We were the only ones who got something out
of it. As long as they were not getting something, they made us--put us
on notice, we are not continuing that one.
That said, the new START succeeds in streamlining verification and
tracking procedures, and it creates a new system, a state-of-the-art
inspection system, and very strict reporting guidelines. The compliance
and verification measures that are in the New START build on 20 years
of verification experience, and they appropriately reflect the
technological advances that have been made since 1991, as well as the
difference of relationships between the United States and Russia
because of the end of the Cold War.
So colleagues need to look at those changes and measure it against
the original benchmark, if you will. The fact is, New START's enhanced
verification measures have a five-pronged approach, five different
components.
One, invasive, onsite inspections.
Two, national technical means. We have always had that, but our
national technical means have improved significantly. Without
discussing them on the floor, I think colleagues are aware of the
capacity of our national technical means.
Three, unique identifiers that will be placed on each weapon. We did
not have that before. Now we are going to have the ability to track
each individual weapon, warhead, and count them. That is new. That is
increased.
Regular data exchange. We gain a great deal. They gain a great deal.
It is a mutual process of exchanging data, which provides stability and
assurances for both sides.
Finally, prompt notifications of the movement of any weapons.
The New START permits up to 18 short-notice, onsite inspections each
year, in order to determine the accuracy of Russia's data and to verify
the compliance. The fact is, this new system is every bit as rigorous
as the system that existed previously.
In fact, because of the change I described earlier, the Belarus,
Ukraine, Kazakhstan change--we had about 70 inspection sites
previously, and those were the nuclear facilities in each of those
different countries. But since three of them have now denuclearized,
the result is, all the former Soviet Union's remaining nuclear weapons
are centralized in Russia, and they are divided between 35 nuclear
facilities.
So we go from 70 facilities that we used to have to inspect down to
35. Thus, the decreasing number of annual inspections from 28 in START
I to 18 in the New START is almost exactly the equivalent in terms of
those allowed under START I because we are inspecting fewer places, and
the inspectors are now allowed to gather more types of data during
those inspections. The United States is also allowed to use national
technical means, which would be reconnaissance satellites, ground
stations, ships, all of them, to verify compliance. The treaty
expressly prohibits tampering with the other party's national technical
means.
Third, Russia has to assign and inform the United States of the
specific unique alphanumeric identifiers that are designating the
deployed and nondeployed ICBMs and SLBMs and nuclear-capable heavy
bombers. This information gives us a great deal more inside look with
respect to the tracking patterns on Russian equipment throughout the
full life cycle of any of those specific systems.
Fourth, the treaty requires Russia to regularly provide to the United
States the aggregate data on strategic offensive forces, including
numbers, locations, and technical characteristics of deployed and
nondeployed strategic offensive arms.
Fifth, the New START establishes a comprehensive notification regime
allowing us to track the movement of Russia's strategic forces and any
changes in the status of their strategic weapons.
The fact is, this agreement employs an enormously aggressive,
forward-leaning, and effective verification system, and it has been
predicated on decades of our doing this very thing with
[[Page 22313]]
the same people. This is not new ground we are breaking. We know how to
do this. We have built up a certain understanding of each other's
capabilities, each other's idiosyncracies and resistances. We know how
to do this. The verification system designed for this treaty is
specifically designed to be less complicated, less costly, and more
effective than the one in the original START treaty.
I have a series of quotes, but I want our colleague to have an
opportunity to speak. I will wait and later share with colleagues the
number of different distinguished, respected, long-serving
personalities within the intelligence community--former LTG Jim Clapper
of the Air Force and others--all of whom have affirmed the ability of
this verification system to do the job and protect the interests of the
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from
Massachusetts for his endurance. I appreciate that.
I have to say also to the Senator from Indiana, my good friend, I am
kind of in a unique position as one who serves on both the Armed
Services and the Foreign Relations Committee. I disagree with most of
what was just stated by the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
One of the concerns I have had is that we have so many people who
want to be in on this, who should be in on this, who have been elected.
We have new Senators, one who is occupying the chair right now. We have
Senators Kirk and Manchin. We also have Senators-elect Blunt, Boozman,
Portman, Moran, Lee, Johnson, Hoeven, Ayotte, Paul, and Rubio. All of
them have signed a letter saying: This is very significant. We really
need to be a part of this. This is important.
It is important in a different way to me than it is to others. I am
opposed for a number of reasons. I am one of the few bad guys who came
out initially and said I opposed it.
We all know what a strategic arms reduction act is. Initially, when
we had two superpowers, it made a lot more sense to me. Frankly, I look
at this, and I see the concerns I have.
Verification--that sounds good. Yes, we will verify. Yet the number
of verifications, inspections, is like 18 per year in the New START as
opposed to some 600 over a 15-year period.
Modernization is one thing on which we all agree. We have to
modernize. But there has to be a way of doing it. We haven't done it
yet.
It was 3 years ago that Secretary Gates said:
No way can we maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the
number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting
to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.
That is an area where we all agree. How are we going to do that?
Right now, I think the generally agreed upon number that it would cost
over a period of 10 years would be $85 billion. We have right now about
$600 million that would be coming up in the next budget cycle. We all
know how things work around here. We can only commit funds for the next
cycle. There is no assurance at all that we would be able to come
through with the other $84.5 billion in that period. The modernization
is not set up in a way where we are in the current year demonstrating
the commitment we have to modernize our fleet.
The fact that we are handling this in a lameduck session--most of the
stuff we are trying to cram in right now is what we should have been
talking about all year long and have not been. They all fall into a
category where it looks as if things are going to change in the Senate.
We know the House, after the November election, is now a Republican-
dominated House. We know we have gained large numbers in the Senate. We
also know there are several of my good colleagues who are up for
reelection in 2012. I am not sure they all want to join in all of these
issues coming up at the last minute. This is one of them.
I look at the quotes we have--the missile defense issue has not been
addressed. I know it would take a lot of discussion. There are probably
potentially, with the new Congress coming in in January, 40 or 50
different amendments just addressing the missile defense issue. They
say: Well, no, this is not a problem. But anytime you have a unilateral
statement that was made--which was made by the Russians early on--that
this treaty can only operate and be viable only if the United States of
America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities
quantitatively and qualitatively--that has been stated, and it has been
stated and reaffirmed more recently when Sergei Lavrov said:
We have not yet agreed on this [missile defense] issue and
we are trying to clarify how the agreements reached by the
two presidents. . . . correlate with the actions taken
unilaterally by Washington.
The problem is that when the American people look at this, they say
that maybe back during the Cold War and maybe back when we had two
superpowers, this thing made sense. Frankly, I was not as supportive of
this concept back then. But there is certainly justification for it.
Where are we today? Right now, we are probably in the most endangered
position we have been in as a nation. I say this from the experience I
have had on both of these committees. We have problems. There are
certainly problems with North Korea and what they have developed in
their capabilities, problems with Syria, certainly problems with Iran.
Our intelligence says--and it is not even classified--that Iran would
have the capability of sending a missile to Western Europe and the
Eastern United States by 2015.
One of the most disturbing things that happened at the beginning of
this administration, a year and a half ago, was when the President came
out with his budget and did away with our site in Poland which was a
ground interceptor site that would have given us the capability of
defending the geography I just mentioned. They took a risk. It wasn't
easy for Poland or the Czech Republic, in terms of their radar system,
to almost defy Russia, but they were willing to do it. I always
remember being a part of the negotiation over there when they said: Are
you sure, if we take this bold step, we start agreeing to build a
ground interceptor in Poland that would protect that area, are you sure
you will not pull the rug out from under us? I said: Absolutely. I had
no hint that this would happen, but it did. So in February, right after
the new President was inaugurated, of the many things he did that I
found objectionable with our defense systems, that was the most
egregious.
We are talking about doing a type of strategic arms reduction with
Russia. I am not concerned about Russia; I am concerned about these
other places. The threat is there. The threat is real. I don't think
there are too many people around since 9/11 who don't know that the
terrorists would in a heartbeat come after the United States.
When we have something that is written in the preamble--statements
have been made over and over again that it would be a violation of this
treaty if we were to enhance our missile defense system. Yet we know
that Syria is going to have a capability by 2015. To me, that is mind-
boggling that people could be sitting around here worrying about this
treaty between two countries when I don't look at them as being a
threat.
Then we have the issue of force structure. I think we know that not
only do we have to have a weapon, we have to have a way of sending it.
We all know the triad and how they are not being enhanced by this. That
is my major concern.
I was against it from the very beginning. However, this is where we
are today. We are in the middle of it. I know I keep hearing on the
radio: You are going to be here until Christmas; you shouldn't do that.
I will be spending New Year's Eve with our troops in Afghanistan. I am
also concerned about what we are doing here in America. Why are we
waiting? Last year, we waited until Christmas Eve. I always remember
going home Christmas Eve. It happened to fall at the same time. It was
the worst snowstorm in the history of Texas and northeastern Oklahoma.
I barely made it in time to get home.
[[Page 22314]]
Yes, I have 20 kids and grandkids. I would kind of like to see them at
Christmas. These are things we could have been doing a long time ago.
You wait until the last minute. This is when you want to cram things
through that the American people don't want and that should take time.
We beat up this thing on this treaty for long enough.
But let's look at what we should be talking about now; that is,
running government into the next year so we don't have some type of a
stoppage, some type of a crisis on our hands. So the liberals have the
omnibus bill that they have up, a bill that is $1.3 trillion. Here we
are talking about we have come up with $2 trillion--$3 trillion--$2
trillion in the first 2 years. This is unheard of in terms of deficits.
Look where we are going right now with $9 billion more in spending than
last year, and we thought last year was an absolute disaster.
At the same time, where is the spending going? We have such things as
their agenda--$1.4 billion for a variety of climate change programs.
They are not going to give up on that. They are going to keep coming
forth trying to spend money. They are talking about the money for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, talking about zeroing out the
efforts in Yucca Mountain. These are things that are in this bill.
What it does to the defense system--everything is enhanced except
defense. What is this aversion to trying to rebuild America's defense
system? Overall, the defense spending cuts in the omnibus bill amount
to $10.3 billion. That is from the President's request of 2011. It
includes the $450 million to include work on the second engine, the
alternate engine. We have already talked about that. We have been
discussing that in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House
Armed Services Committee.
We decided, I believe justly--I was on the single engine side of that
argument because of the sheer cost. Yet I know the arguments on both
sides. We have already done that. We have already debated it. I don't
know why we have to come to the floor after we have made these
decisions and then look at a bill that cuts the proposed purchase of
the F-35s from 42 to 35.
Let's remember what happened a year and a half ago. They talked about
doing away with the F-22s, which are the only fifth-generation
capability we have. The justification was, look what we are doing with
F-35s. That is fine. But so it is going to be 42. This bill would cut
it down--further cuts.
So while we are talking about a bill of $1.3 trillion, it throws
money at every kind of social engineering, everything you could have
except defense.
The CERP--this program used to be called the commander's emergency
relief program. It was one that was my program. You talk to the
commanders in the field, and they will tell you they have a capability
of taking care of some of these needs. Whether it used to be Iraq, now
Afghanistan, they can accomplish so much more if they can do it right
now. That is called CERP. They are already bringing the funding of that
down in this bill. I look at over $1 trillion in funding to implement
the very unpopular health care law. If anybody is out there thinking
this is going to be an easy lift, I personally think we will be able to
defeat this omnibus bill. I think it will be defeated by almost all
Republicans and a few of the Democrats, particularly those coming up
for reelection in 2012. I would hate to be in a position where I would
say: What I am going to run on is the fact that I already voted to put
more than $1 trillion into funding this form of socialized medicine.
That is where we are right now. I do think we need to take a deep
breath and just figure that we have a new Congress coming in, a new
Senate coming in right after January. We will have plenty of time to
allow other Senators who were elected to weigh in on this very critical
issue of the New START treaty.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly join my colleagues
in explaining some of my concerns, first of all, about the process by
which we are taking up something as important as a treaty with regard
to nuclear arms. Of course, this is the second part of a two-part
constitutional process.
The President sent this treaty to the Senate, along with a
transmittal letter dated May 13, 2010, and here we are on December 16,
shortly before the Christmas holidays and adjournment, taking up a
treaty as important as this. Of course, under article II, section 2 of
the United States Constitution, a treaty cannot be ratified without the
vote of at least two-thirds of the Members of the Senate.
I know everyone--whether they are for this treaty, whether they are
against this treaty, whether they are merely questioning some aspects
of the treaty and are perhaps seeking to make some modifications--I
believe everyone is approaching this issue with the kind of seriousness
and gravity that should be required of a Senator approaching something
this serious.
But I have to make this observation: Here we are, as I said, on
December 16, 2 days--2 days--after having dropped on us a 1,924-page
Omnibus appropriations bill which calls for the Federal Government to
spend an additional $1.2 trillion. The idea that we would later today
take up the issue of funding the Federal Government and consider this
Omnibus appropriations bill while we would have to basically detour and
lay this treaty by the side--this is, to me, just irresponsible. I do
not know any other word to describe it.
We have, in fact, been in session 151 days during 2010. That is
right. You heard me correctly. The Senate has actually been in session
151 days this year. I think most people would love to get a paycheck
across America and only be expected to show up and do their job 151
days a year.
Now, I know when we go back home, we continue to work with our
constituents, to listen to their concerns and otherwise, but my simple
point is, when the President sends this treaty over on May 13, 2010,
and at the same time, simultaneously, we are being asked to consider
this huge Omnibus appropriations bill of $1.2 trillion--some 2,000
pages long--the idea that we would try to jam through or give expedited
consideration to the serious, substantive issues being raised by this
treaty is, as I said, poor time management, to say the least, and I
think irresponsible.
I want to raise some of the substantive concerns I have about the
treaty on which I know there will be further discussions.
First of all, I would point out that the treaty does not itself
address tactical----
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have the floor.
Mr. KERRY. I know. I am just asking if the Senator would yield for a
question.
Mr. CORNYN. I would be glad, after I get through my remarks, to yield
for some questions.
Mr. KERRY. I appreciate it.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would note, as others have noted, that
the treaty completely excludes consideration of a limitation on
tactical nuclear weapons, even though Russia possesses a significant
superiority in terms of numbers over the United States for these types
of weapons.
I would just note that some at the Department of Defense have noted
that the difference between strategic weapons and tactical weapons has
become somewhat muddled and less meaningful in recent decades. I
believe a legitimate cause for concern is why we would exclude tactical
nuclear weapons, that the Russians have numerical superiority of, and
not even seek to regulate or contain those at all, while we are focused
strictly on strategic nuclear weapons, of which the United States would
have to cut our current numbers and the Russians not at all in order to
meet the goals of the treaty.
I would say, secondly, I have concerns about the treaty's provisions
on verification. Of course, President Reagan was famous for saying we
should trust, but verify when it comes to this type of treaty. I would
point out
[[Page 22315]]
that Brent Scowcroft, in 1997, pointed out the importance of when we
are actually reducing the overall number of weapons, verification
becomes that much more important. He said, in 1997:
Current force levels provide a kind of buffer because they
are high enough to be relatively insensitive to imperfect
intelligence and modest force changes. . . . As force levels
go down, the balance of nuclear power can become increasingly
delicate and vulnerable to cheating on arms control limits,
concerns about nondeployed ``hidden missiles'' and the
actions of nuclear third parties.
So we need to be extraordinarily careful, even more careful now than
perhaps we have been in the past with regard to the verification
measures.
We know the Russians have taken every advantage to cheat on previous
treaties and to be untrustworthy. According to the official State
Department reports on arms control compliance, the Russians have
previously violated--or are still violating, even as we speak--
important provisions of most of the key arms control treaties to which
they have been a party, including the original START treaty, the
Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, the
Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and Open Skies.
The New START treaty does not close that gap on verification
loopholes that the Russians are already exploiting or, in fact,
evading.
As my colleague, Senator Bond--who is, notably, the vice chairman of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--has told us, the annual
10-warhead limit on inspections allowed under this treaty permit us to
sample only 2 to 3 percent of the total Russian deployed force and,
therefore, it will be impossible--it will be literally impossible;
limited to 10 annual warhead inspections over a 10-year treaty--to
inspect all, much less most, of the 1,550 limit on deployed warheads.
So why would we call this a robust verification provision if we are
only allowed to see 2 to 3 percent of the total Russian force?
The New START treaty, unlike its predecessor, permits any number of
warheads to be loaded on a missile. So even if the Russians fully
cooperated--which I do not believe they have in the past, nor can be
trusted to do so in the future--even if they do cooperate with all of
the provisions in the New START treaty, these inspections cannot
provide the sort of conclusive evidence that you would think would be
required given the gravity of the potential risk. They cannot provide
conclusive evidence that the Russians are, in fact, complying with the
warhead limit.
Third, the New START treaty handcuffs the United States from
deploying new capabilities we need to defend our Nation and our allies
from missile attacks.
I would just point out that this chart I have in the Chamber
demonstrates the ballistic missile threat that is presented in a map of
Europe and Africa and Asia. You will notice that Russia is not even on
this map. But you will notice a number of other ballistic missile
threats that could affect not only the United States but most certainly
our allies. This map is a compilation from the Missile Defense Agency
based on information from several agencies in the intelligence
community and shows that more than a dozen nations--more than a dozen
nations--have developed or are developing
llistic missile capabilities. Several of these nations are notorious
for that--North Korea, Iran, and Libya, just to name a few. But we know
others, such as Yemen and Pakistan, have al-Qaida operatives or other
extremist groups operating within their borders.
The fact is, we need a robust missile defense capability, not to
protect us from Russian ballistic missiles but from ballistic missiles
from some of these other nations that have developed them, some of whom
have groups such as al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations there
that would love to get their hands on some of these weapons and use
them against America or our allies. That is why it makes absolutely no
sense to constrain our future missile defense options in exchange for
reductions in the strategic nuclear weapons of just one country, and
that is Russia.
Now, some of my colleagues may be arguing there are no limitations on
missile defense in the treaty and that the language in the preamble,
which ties our strategic offensive arms to our strategic defensive
arms--for the first time ever, by the way--that this preamble language
does not mean anything, does not operate as a constraint on our missile
defense programs.
But that is not what the Russians have said. That is not how they
read it. Of course, the Senate has been denied the negotiating record
by which we could actually clarify what was said by American
negotiators and Russian negotiators in coming up with this language.
Isn't that something you would think the administration would want
clarified, if they could clarify it by providing this information? But,
no, we have been stonewalled and told: You cannot have it, Senate, even
though under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, you have a
constitutional duty when it comes to treaty ratification.
I just think it is a very poor way to do business, to say the least,
and causes me to question whether there is a uniform understanding of
constraints on our missile defense system. Again, you can see that the
risk is not just from Russia, it is much more widespread,
unfortunately, than that.
Russia has also made a unilateral statement that it claims the right
to withdraw from the New START treaty if the United States does, in
fact, expand our missile defense capability. Doug Feith shed some light
on this issue earlier in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Feith, of course, as you remember, is a former Under Secretary of
Defense under the Bush administration, and he helped negotiate the
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, known as the SORT treaty. He
says during those negotiations, the Russians were constantly trying to
get the Americans to negotiate away our right to defend ourselves from
missile attacks. The Bush administration rightly rejected those Russian
demands, and they got a good treaty anyway. But the Obama
administration, in this treaty, gave Russia what it wanted when it came
to our missile defense, among other concessions as well--a very serious
concern, I would say.
The New START treaty has other flaws, but even if it was an
outstanding treaty, I think the gravity of what we are about here--in
considering this treaty, and reductions in nuclear arms, and trying to
make the world a more secure and safer place--that it warrants more
careful and deliberate consideration of this treaty than we are going
to be able to give during this lameduck session.
I have heard people talk about, well, the fact that this is the
Christmas season--of course, we would all like to be with our families.
But we recognize the fact that we have important obligations to perform
in the Senate. I think all of us are willing to perform those. But the
problem is, we have had an election on November 2, and there are a lot
of people, as the Senator from Oklahoma said, who were just elected by
the American people who would be denied an opportunity to let their
voice be heard on such an important issue if this treaty is jammed
through during the waning days of the 111th Congress. Now, we know the
legitimacy of our government itself rests upon the consent of the
governed. The fact is, during the most recent election the American
people said they don't like the direction Washington is heading and
they want us to change. The idea that we would then--after the election
takes place but before the new Senators in Congress are actually sworn
in--try to rush through such important matters such as this treaty and
deny them an opportunity, and the voices of the people who elected them
to be heard, to me, does not speak well of this process, and I think
indeed denies us the legitimacy of the consent of the governed, or
certainly many of them.
Let's be clear about what is happening. We know the administration
wants a vote on this New START treaty because they think they have a
better chance of passing it now than when these new Senators are sworn
in on January 5. There is no one I have heard
[[Page 22316]]
who has suggested there is a national security threat to the United
States from delaying the ratification of this treaty by a month. No
one. I don't think they could plausibly make such a contention.
I think there is a little bit of an attempt to focus our attention
away from the $1.2 trillion spending tsunami that was unleashed on
Congress just 2 days ago in which we are told Senator Reid, the
majority leader, is going to insist be voted on in just a few days. I
think a better alternative to that, and certainly a better alternative
than to go through this unnecessary drama about government shutdowns,
is to pass a one-page continuing resolution that would keep the
government operating until January or February, at which time these
newly elected Senators and House Members would be able to participate.
It would be the time when we could certainly take up this treaty and
give it thoughtful and careful consideration, the kind of debate and
amendment process I think our responsibility requires rather than
trying to move it through in this irresponsible manner.
This omnibus bill I mentioned earlier will no doubt be called up
later today, perhaps, and be attached to a continuing resolution and
then cloture filed, asking 60 Senators to agree to close off debate,
denying any opportunity for amendments and the kind of consideration I
think the American people would want us to have for a $1.2 trillion
spending bill.
We know Christmas is almost here and many Americans look forward to
celebrating that important holiday and reflecting on what comes with
the new year. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will
reconsider the tactics they are employing during this lameduck session
to try to gloss over or ignore the important substantive concerns many
of us have about this very significant treaty and to ram through
unpopular legislation just as happened last year on Christmas Eve with
the passage of the health care bill. Many Americans remember passing
that bill on Christmas Eve in the Senate, and they were outraged by the
process, by the back-room negotiations and deals that took place in
order to get over the 60-vote threshold.
So this year I would submit that millions of Americans want just one
thing from Congress, and that would be a silent night. Let's pray they
get it. If the Senator still has a question or two for me, I would be
glad to yield for that purpose.
I thank the chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague from Texas, I
am a little surprised to hear him be quite so harsh about the--I think
he used the word ``irresponsible''--about why we are here in this
predicament right now. I shouldn't have to remind him, but in this
session of Congress there have been more filibusters by his party than
at any time from World War I all the way through until the late 1970s.
We have nominees waiting to be passed who have sat there for months
who cannot get a vote. When we finally have a cloture vote to get 60
votes to get them out, they get 90, 95 votes in the Senate. They just
delay and delay and delay. I am not going to stand here and listen to
them come to the floor of the Senate asking why we are trying to do the
important business of the country at the last minute because all they
have to do is look in the mirror. That is all they have to do, and they
will see why we are here.
Then to say we can't do the important business of this treaty in the
amount of time we have is totally contradicted by history of every
treaty we have worked on. Earlier today we had a Senator say: Well, we
can't do that. We have to--we can't dual-track. I pointed out that
START I, which was a much more complicated treaty, took 4\1/2\ days. On
the day they passed it, they passed two or three other pieces of
legislation. On the day we went to it, we passed a tax bill and an
appropriations bill.
We have reached a new stage in America where we just say something.
It doesn't matter if it is based on the truth. Just say it, put it out
there, and somebody is going to believe it. Somebody will pick it up.
So I regret that. We have been here for a day. We still haven't had
an amendment, and all this talk about serious consideration. I am going
to release a breakdown of who has spoken and for how long because it is
interesting to take a look at what is going on.
By the way, why would we have to read something? I understand we may
have to read the appropriations bill for about a day and a half; have
the clerk up here just reading the bill. Now, there is an act of
stunning responsibility. Let's just chew up the time of the Senate,
keeping everybody up all night reading a bill rather than working on
it.
So I have said enough about it. I think what we need to do is do the
business of the country, and there is plenty of time to do it and still
plenty of time to get home for Christmas if we would spend our time
doing that rather than a lot of delay tactics.
Some Senators have also cited an early statement by General
Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting
he had some concern about the numbers. Let me make clear, here is what
General Cartwright said today: ``We need START and we need it badly.''
Now, are you going to listen to General Cartwright or are you going
to listen to some of these sort of vague and somewhat similar talking
points that keep coming to the floor without an amendment, without any
substantive work?
At this point I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, the
Senate resume legislative session and the majority leader be recognized
at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to object, and I will not. I just
want to make sure that at 3:30 I will be allowed to speak.
Mr. KERRY. We are staying on the START agreement at that time.
Mrs. BOXER. So is 3:30 a good time or 3:40?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I intend to yield the floor. I ask
unanimous consent that when I yield the floor, the Senator from
California be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for your ruling on the unanimous
consent request with respect to 6 p.m. today we move to legislative
session and the majority leader be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, with whom I have worked closely. I
thank also Senator Lugar, the ranking member, who at times has been my
chair. It does my heart good to see them working closely on this
matter. I was also elated to see the test vote we had on this already.
I hope that vote, that test vote, is indicative of where we are
going. We were almost at 67. My understanding is that one Member wasn't
there to vote. We should be at 67. I hope we can get this done at the
earliest opportunity because despite some of the protests of our
colleagues saying there hasn't been enough time, my understanding is
that we have been on this for 7 months. And no one could have worked
harder than our chairman and our ranking member on making sure that
every single objection to the New START treaty, every single problem
and challenge was heard and that a lot of this was already worked out
in the resolution of ratification. So, hopefully, we can get through
this.
I have had opportunities, as a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee in particular, to ask national security experts what keeps
them up at night, what is the one thing they worry about. Whether it
comes from the CIA or any other place within the intelligence
community, the answer comes
[[Page 22317]]
back like this: What keeps them up at night is the possibility that a
terrorist could get hold of a nuclear weapon.
I have to say, that worrisome possibility is on the minds of many
Americans. The New START treaty makes this less likely. Therefore,
ratifying the treaty is in our national interest and, frankly, it is in
the interest of the world. The New START treaty requires a 30-percent
reduction of deployed strategic weapons on the Russian and American
side, with on-the-ground verification. That is key. It reduces delivery
systems to 800 per side.
I am not going to speak for very long, I say to my colleagues who
have come here, because so much has been said. I can't say it any
better. So what I am going to do for most of the remainder of my time
is quote from people, Republicans and Democrats, who have been quite
eloquent on this issue, in addition to Senators Kerry and Lugar.
It is clear Democrats and Republicans alike support this treaty. We
hear a lot of talk about not labeling each other and coming together.
Look, this is an area where we have come together, and all we have to
do is put the finishing touches on this ratification and complete this
very important work that is in front of us.
In addition to all of our NATO allies supporting this, including
those in Eastern Europe--which I think is very important to note--we
have the support of all of these American leaders on both sides of the
aisle. I will read some of their comments for the Record: ``I urge the
U.S. Senate to ratify the START treaty.'' This is a statement from a
few days ago from President George Herbert Walker Bush.
This is from Colin Powell, Secretary of State for George W. Bush:
I fully support this treaty and I hope that the Senate will
give its advice and consent as soon as possible . . . [T]his
treaty is in the best interest of the United States of
America, the best interest of the world, and frankly in the
best interest of the Russian Federation.
Howard Baker, former Senator, Republican from Tennessee, said just a
few days ago:
A world without a binding U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control
treaty is a more dangerous place, less predictable, less
stable than the one we live in today. . . . Trust, but
verify. Ratify this treaty.
George Shultz, a constituent of mine, Secretary of State for
President Reagan, wrote with Sam Nunn, a Democrat and former Senator
from Georgia whom we all respect on these issues:
Noting the full support of the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
staff, and following our own review of the treaty, we urge
the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of
New START as early as is feasible.
I hope we don't have a lot of delaying, more delaying tactics around
here because it is not necessary.
I heard colleagues say, What is the rush? What is the rush? We have
had 7 months. Senators Kerry and Lugar have bent over backwards and
done everything possible to accommodate Senators, such as Senator Kyl,
who wanted certain assurances on the modernization of our nuclear
weapons. They did everything to answer every question. By the way, they
will continue to do that as we get to any other issues.
This is what James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents
Nixon and Ford, said:
I think it is obligatory for the United States to ratify New
START. . . . For the United States, at this juncture, to fail
to ratify the treaty in the due course of the Senate's
deliberation would have a detrimental effect on our ability
to influence others with regard to, particularly, the
nonproliferation issue.
So James Schlesinger gets to the point of nonproliferation, the
worrisome fact that a terrorist or rogue state could get one of these
weapons.
Alan Simpson, an outspoken former Republican Senator from Wyoming,
said this:
Nothing in the treaty constrains our ability to develop and
deploy a robust missile defense system as our military
planners see fit. The idea that this treaty somehow makes
major concessions to the Russians on missile defense is just
simply not true.
I will quote Pat Buchanan, former White House Communications Director
for President Ronald Reagan:
Richard Nixon would have supported this treaty. Ronald
Reagan would have supported this treaty, as he loathed
nuclear weapons and wished to rid the world of them. And
simply because this treaty is ``Obama's treaty'' does not
mean it is not in America's interest.
I don't think I have ever in my life quoted Pat Buchanan on the
floor. I am just proving the point that this particular issue is
extremely bipartisan. It unites everybody, except apparently a few of
our friends on the other side.
Brent Scowcroft, LTG retired, National Security Adviser to Presidents
Ford and George H.W. Bush, said this:
New START should not be controversial no matter how liberal
or conservative you are.
That also makes the point.
Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator, made this statement--and I
will not read the entire statement. He ends it by saying:
This would be devastating not just for arms control but for
security interests worldwide [if we didn't deal with this
issue].
Henry Kissinger has a very long statement. I will not read the entire
statement, but he said this:
. . . for all these reasons, I recommend ratification of this
treaty. . . . I do not believe this treaty is an obstacle to
a missile defense program or modernization. . . . A rejection
of this treaty would indicate that a new period of American
policy had started that would have an unsettling impact on
the international environment.
So here you have somebody who has been deeply involved in foreign
relations for so many years saying, in essence--and I am not quoting
him here, but I am summing up what I read, that it would be a radical
departure from America's foreign policy if we were not to do this.
James Baker, former Secretary of State for President George H.W.
Bush, writes:
New START appears to take our country in a direction that
can enhance our national security. . . . It can also improve
Washington's relationship with Moscow regarding nuclear
weapons and delivery vehicles, a relationship that will be
vital if the two countries are to cooperate in order to stem
nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran and North
Korea. I agree with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates when he
wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal that the new
treaty provides verification that has been needed since START
I expired in December. An effective verification regime is a
critical component of arms control and I believe that the
world is safer when the United States and Russia are abiding
by one.
I will close with a couple of Democratic individuals who have also
joined their Republican friends in this.
President Bill Clinton said this:
The START agreement is very important to the future of our
national security and it is not a radical agreement. This is
something that is profoundly important. This ought to be way
beyond party.
He said that a couple days ago. William Perry, we remember well; he
was Secretary of Defense for President Clinton. He said:
The treaty puts no meaningful limits on our antiballistic
missile defense program. In fact, it reduces restrictions
that existed under the previous START Treaty. I recommend
ratification.
Former Senator Sam Nunn said this:
Delaying ratification of this treaty, or defeating it,
would damage United States security interests and United
States credibility globally.
He takes the same tack that I am taking. He is someone who supports
this. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, former strategic nuclear commanders,
and our intelligence community leadership all have stated that the
treaty is essential to our Nation's security.
I am hopeful the Senate will put our Nation's security
first by providing its advice and consent to this important
treaty.
That was Sam Nunn.
I will close with two more quotes, one from Vice President Joe Biden:
Failure to pass the new START Treaty this year would
endanger our national security. We would have no Americans on
the ground to inspect Russia's nuclear activities, no
verification regimes to track Russia's nuclear arsenal, less
cooperation between two nations that account for 90 percent
of the world's nuclear weapons, and no verified nuclear
reduction.
We all know Vice President Biden was the respected chair of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and it was my honor to serve with him.
[[Page 22318]]
Finally, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said this:
Failing to ratify the treaty would not only undermine our
strategic stability, the predictability, and the
transparency, but it would severely impact our potential to
lead on the important issue of nonproliferation.
I end where I started. What keeps the intelligence community people
up at night is the fear that we don't wrap our arms around nuclear
proliferation, and that a weapon gets into the hands of a terrorist or
rogue nation. New START is--as our chairman has said many times--not a
very broad treaty. It is pretty narrow. It is essential, but it doesn't
cover that much new ground. It ensures that we are going to have a
mutual reduction in these arms that we will be able to verify, and it
makes it less likely that we are going to have the type of
proliferation that keeps a lot of us up at night, including the
American people, I am sure. We need to take steps in this holiday
season toward peace. We need to take steps every day to make sure that
the threats we face in this difficult world, with all of our
challenges, are diminished.
Once again, I say to my chairman, his leadership has been
extraordinary on this. I was beginning to give up hope that we would be
able to get this done. He constantly said that we don't give up, we
keep pursuing this. It is the right thing to do. And he has done it
with Senator Lugar by his side.
This is a good day. I feel good that we are doing this. I feel that
the people, particularly at this time of the year, will feel much
better when we get this done in a bipartisan way. I know we will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, are we working off of already arranged time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no operating UC for time at this
moment.
Mr. BURR. I thank the Chair. I want to make some introductory remarks
about the START treaty this afternoon. My real interest lies in the
closed session that will take place on a later date. But this is an
important debate. I have deep respect for not just the chairman but for
the ranking member. But like all Members, I have a passion for this
issue. I want to make some general comments at this time about it.
The threat of nuclear engagement between the United States and Russia
has diminished greatly since we began arms reduction talks with the
Soviets in the 1970s. It is a credit to the agreements of past years
that the strategic relationship between the United States and Russia
has evolved to a point where Americans and Russians no longer fear a
war between NATO and Warsaw powers.
The world has changed in many ways for the better as a result of
those bilateral arms reduction efforts. But today, the United States
and our allies face emerging and destabilizing nuclear threats from
rogue nations and nonstate actors who have shown no willingness to
follow or accept international standards or adhere to nonproliferation
treaties.
While the new START treaty continues a historic dialog between two
great nations, I am concerned that negotiated language in this treaty--
especially wording in its preamble about ``existence of the
interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic
defensive arms''--may in fact signal a subtle yet troubling return to
the Cold War linkage between offensive and defensive weapons. Some
dismiss this wording as the flowery language of diplomats. But words
have meaning. Treaty language is not filler. I can only conclude that
this specific commitment reflects the current thinking of the President
and his administration, which is a departure from their predecessors in
past administrations, and offers the Russians a reason to leverage the
treaty to their distinct advantage with respect to our efforts to
improve upon our missile defenses.
Even if a treaty such as the New START had a place in today's world,
several key issues are lacking in the treaty that this body should and
would have to address. One, the treaty does not address Russia's
tactical nuclear weapons. Two, this treaty does nothing to address
stored warheads. Three, this treaty is silent on rail mobile ICBMs.
Four, this treaty allows the Russians to encrypt and hide missile test
data for all new nuclear weapons they develop.
This treaty places limits on our nonnuclear conventional global
strike weapons--unheard of in the past. This treaty submits and
subjects our Nation's objectives in missile defense to the review and
approval of the Kremlin. This treaty ignores the nuclear capabilities,
desires, ambitions, and plans of nations and non-nation actors who seek
to undermine and harm U.S. national security interests.
Many pundits have spoken about the urgent need to get the U.S.
inspectors on the ground in Russia to verify the state of their new
nuclear weapon systems and verify compliance. But when one examines the
inspection protocols within this treaty, it will be clear that we must
give such advance notification and jump through so many multiple hoops
just to get approval to visit a site, by the time an inspection begins
there is a high likelihood we will only see what the Russians want us
to see and nothing more.
Other supporters of this treaty contend that by ratifying New START
we further enhance our relationship and leverage with the Russians,
with respect to the destabilizing threats posed by North Korea and
Iran. But the Russians already recognize the problems posed by these
two countries, because they are along their borders. The Russians
should not require this treaty as an incentive to protect their own
regional interests.
For these reasons, I remain concerned that by ratifying New START,
the Senate would be allowing an outdated and narrow agenda to constrain
our defense flexibilities and capabilities at the very point in history
where we need a clear-eyed view of the real threats on the horizon.
There is no urgent need to ratify New START this week, next week, or
even next year. Given the numerous flaws in this treaty, to say nothing
of the flawed backward-looking process that developed it, it is prudent
for the Senate to work on ways to improve upon the treaty and how it
has been put forth in order to better ensure the strategic interests of
the United States and to make sure it is fully protected.
Mr. President, my colleagues, our Nation does need a new start in our
relationship with Russia. It needs a new approach. This treaty
represents an old approach, based on Cold War relationships. In my
estimation, it should be rejected by this body.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of a treaty that I
actually think is of vital importance to our national security, to our
national interests, and to our international reputation in the
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
Let me first start off by recognizing Senator Kerry, the chairman of
our Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lugar, the ranking member.
They have done an extraordinary job. I smile as I listen to some of my
colleagues say it has not been reviewed enough, it has not been vetted
enough. We have had an incredible number of sessions on the question of
what the treaty contains and flushing out all of its points and points
of view. In a very bipartisan way, the committee has worked assiduously
to bring us to this point so that Members can make an informed
decision. So I wish to salute the chairman for his incredible work in
that regard.
The original START treaty expired on December 5 of last year, 2009.
So as of today, December 16, 2010, it has been 376 days since the
United States lost the ability to conduct onsite inspections--lost it--
not knowing what has happened with those weapons. It has been 376 days
since we lost our ability to monitor and verify Russia's nuclear
arsenal.
Now, I know some say our relationship with Russia has gotten a lot
better. Yes, but it is their arsenal that we
[[Page 22319]]
care about. It is about an arsenal that now has a Russian leadership
that we are having better relationships with, but we never know what
that relationship will be tomorrow. Good relationships are built on
firm understandings, and the treaty creates a firm understanding of our
respective obligations. That is why we need to move forward and ratify
START.
Now, I agree, I have heard some of my colleagues suggest that there
are other nations--namely, Iran and North Korea--that presently present
maybe a greater threat to our security and the security of our allies,
but that is not the point. The point is that the threat of loose
nuclear materials anywhere in the world--anywhere in the world, whether
in Russia, Iran, or North Korea--is a major concern. The point is that
the severity of the threat from those nations does not diminish the
threat presented by the Russian nuclear arsenal. Those threats in no
way negate the need to continue our nonproliferation regime and
conclude a treaty with Russia and then move on to continuing to address
the serious threats presented by Iran and North Korea.
Let me just say that on one of those two, on Iran, since my days in
the House of Representatives, I have been pursuing Iran, well before
some people looked at Iran as a challenge. When I found out the
International Atomic Energy Administration was taking voluntary
contributions for the United States to help create operational capacity
at the Bushehr nuclear facility, I raised those issues and sought to
stem the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars going for that purpose. So I
understand about Iran and North Korea, but that does not diminish the
importance of knowing about this nuclear arsenal.
It is true that political developments in the past two decades have
greatly diminished the probability of nuclear war between our nations.
But the fact remains that Russia continues to have more than 600
nuclear launch vehicles and more than 2,700 warheads. It is because of
those numbers that this Chamber needs to do what is in our national
security interests and ratify START now. We need the ability to track
and verify Russia's nuclear arsenal. We need onsite inspections. We
need the enhanced flexibility of short-notice inspections of deployed
and nondeployed systems. We need to be able to verify the numbers of
warheads carried on Russian strategic missiles. We need the ability--
provided for the first time in this treaty--to track all accountable
strategic nuclear delivery systems.
We need a verification regime. Trust, but verify. Trust, but verify.
We know those words well. They have been spoken on this floor many
times by many of our Republican colleagues, some who are now willing to
turn their back on the truth of those words. The truth is that at the
heart of this treaty, the ability for this Nation to verify Russia's
nuclear arsenal remains paramount to our security. It remains paramount
to continued bilateral cooperation between the United States and
Russia.
For these reasons, START has broad bipartisan support, including
support from the Secretaries of Defense and State and National Security
Advisers for a whole host of Presidents--President Nixon, President
Ford, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
All of those people have come together regardless of their partisan
labels or views, and they all believe this is in our national security
interest and necessary if we are to show the world that we demand as
much of ourselves as we ask of others.
So as we press the Iranian and North Korean Governments to come into
compliance, this treaty demonstrates to all nations that have nuclear
aspirations that we are willing to live by the rules; that
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is not an empty wish but a national
policy that is in our national interest and the interests of the world;
that our willingness to accede to oversight and monitoring of our
nuclear weapons and facilities, our willingness to reduce our nuclear
arsenal in the interest of global security, and our willingness to
cooperate with willing partners is part and parcel of American policy.
It is what we believe is right, what we will live by, and what we will
demand of all nations.
I hope that with respect to global nuclear security, we can see clear
to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Some have suggested
in this Chamber that we can't do that. We certainly can. We can ratify
START and continue to press Iran and North Korea.
You know, this is the one issue I would have hoped we--and we
certainly do in some respects, certainly in some of our leadership on
the committee, Senator Lugar and others--it is the one place the Senate
has always enjoyed a bipartisan effort. Put the country first in the
case of all of those in the world and understand that on this there is
no division.
It was Senator Vandenberg, a Republican from Michigan, who once
famously said:
To me, bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort to
unite our official voice at the water's edge . . .
He went on to say:
It does not invoke the remotest surrender of free debate in
determining our position. In a word, it simply seeks national
security ahead of partisan advantage.
But, sadly, I believe the efforts by some to derail START are
politically motivated, putting partisan advantage ahead of national
security. Nothing that protects us from the spread of nuclear weapons
should be politically motivated, not in this brave new world.
Let's be clear. This treaty does not in any way diminish our
commitment to keeping this Nation safe and strong. It imposes no limits
on current or planned ballistic defense programs by the United States.
In fact, the President has committed to a 10-year, $80 billion plan to
modernize our nuclear infrastructure, which represents a 15-percent
increase over current spending levels.
The truth is that the United States retains overwhelming strike
capacity under this treaty. Under this treaty, we will retain 700
deployed launchers and 1,550 deployed warheads. Keep in mind the
overwhelming strike capacity this represents to assure any adversary of
a devastating response to any attack on the United States or our
allies, which is at the heart of our deterrent posture. In real terms,
just to give us a sense of what this means, we will retain enough
strike capacity to end civilization as we know it and destroy the
entire ecosystem of the planet--far beyond the destructive power of the
weapons used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Let's keep in mind that one standard nuclear warhead has an explosive
force equal to 100,000 tons of conventional high explosives. The use of
1,000 nuclear warheads has a destructive power of 100 million tons of
dynamite and the ability to darken this planet in a nightmare nuclear
winter beyond our imagination.
So any argument to the contrary, any argument that we do not retain
an overwhelming nuclear strike capacity, is, in my view, a political
argument, and I believe that some who have come and said that we can't
do this--and then, in the midst of this discussion, in the midst of
this treaty debate, I hear omnibus discussions. I cannot believe that
something that is about the national security of the United States,
making sure future generations of Americans never face that nuclear
winter, somehow gets lumped in with all of the other political
conversations.
I know I have heard the leadership on the other side of the aisle say
their Number 1 goal is for this President to fail at all costs and to
make him a one-term President. But, my God, I thought this had nothing
to do with that. I thought this had nothing to do with that. I would
hope that on an occasion such as this where we are talking about the
Nation's security, the ability to verify, the ability to understand
what Russia's nuclear weaponry is all about goes beyond the success or
failure of this President. It is about the Nation being able to
succeed.
Finally, I have heard a lot of talk about how late this is and that
it is almost Christmas. I certainly want to be with my family as much
as anybody else, but I have to be honest with you,
[[Page 22320]]
I want my family and I want the family of every New Jerseyan I
represent, of every American for whom I am part of this Senate to have
the security that they will never face that nuclear winter.
I cannot accept the statements I have heard here. I was not going to
include this in my remarks, but I have heard now several times that we
are here so late. Well, you know, this 2-year session of Congress has
been so challenging because, time and time again, colleagues--
particularly on the other side of the aisle--have used a procedure in
the Senate--a right they have, but it is a right that has clearly been
abused--to filibuster. What that means is that which we grew up
understanding as Americans from the day we were in a classroom and we
were taught about a simple majority rule--well, here in the Senate,
that simple majority of representing the people of the United States,
the 300 million people, is 51. But under the rules of the Senate, when
one Senator wants to object to moving forward, ultimately we don't need
that simple majority that Americans have come to understand; we end up
needing 60. Of course, since neither party possesses those 60 votes, we
often end up in a stalemate and are not able to move forward. That has
been used time and time again. I would have to do it over 100 times
just for the one session of the Congress, for the 2 years of the
Congress, to remind people why it is so late in the process--because,
time and time again, that process has been used to delay. Even when
that process has been broken and the 60 votes have been accomplished,
there have been votes that soar in the 80th or 90th percentile of the
Members of this body voting to support the proposition. But the time
was killed. It is the time not of the Senate but the time of the
American people.
Then I have to hear some of my colleagues, in the midst of a debate
about a nuclear treaty--understanding that we are trying to prevent and
to verify the possibility that weapons get out of the hands of those
who have the authority over them, among other reasons to have this
treaty--talk about the omnibus. Well, I just find it beyond my
imagination, especially when colleagues who are railing about on that
are part of asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in
the omnibus. Then they come and say: Oh, this is a terrible thing, and
the treaty is being brought up at the same time, and somehow we should
not be able to move to this treaty because of that issue, even though
what they rail against is what they have blatantly participated in.
This issue is too important--too important to be wound up in that.
In the end, the purpose of this treaty and of U.S. efforts to thwart
other nations from going nuclear is to ensure that future generations
will not live with the specter of a nuclear winter and the destruction
of civilization as we know it.
We have an opportunity to move--and I would hope move quickly--to do
what is right, to ratify START, and lead the world by example. By
leading the world by example, then we can also make demands on the rest
of the world to make sure they obey and agree and ultimately concur and
ultimately live by the same example. That is our opportunity, and that
is an opportunity we should not lose.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. He
is a valuable member of our committee, diligent and articulate on these
issues. I appreciate the comments he made, particularly reinforcing the
comments about the delay.
I remind colleagues that earlier the Senator from Arizona mentioned
it is sort of unfair to be doing this at the same time we are doing
something else. I remind colleagues that he said START I was completed
sort of on its own, freestanding. I wish to correct the record. START I
did not, in fact, go through freestanding. On the same day the Senate
held the cloture vote on the treaty on START I, it voted on two
amendments related to the treaty, and it also voted on the final
passage of a tax bill. They managed to do two things at the same time.
The following day, the Senate voted on another amendment related to
the treaty. It also agreed on that day to the conference report on
Interior appropriations. It passed the DC appropriations bill. Those
are two separate items. And it debated and held two rollcall votes on
the Foreign Operations bill. Those are four separate bills and items
dealt with at the same time they were dealing with START I. The
following day, it had the final passage on the START treaty, in about 4
days-plus-and-a-half, I think.
Also, I remind my colleagues, as I should have reminded the Senator
from Texas, 13 times colleagues came on the other side of the aisle to
Senator Lugar and asked him to slow down the process of the legislation
piece of the treaty because of the need to work on modernization. We
did that. Again, colleagues came to us. Way back last summer, we were
prepared to move the treaty out of committee so we wouldn't wind up in
this situation. Guess who came to us and said: No, it would be better
if we had a little more time. Our friends on the other side of the
aisle said: Please don't do that vote. I think it would be better for
the treaty if we took our time. So we provided another 6 weeks to file
questions, get answers, work on modernization, pull people together.
Frankly, it was a constructive process. I am not suggesting it didn't
provide some benefits. But we accommodated a request to slow it down to
meet the needs of our friends on the other side of the aisle. Then,
subsequently, when there were potential complaints that it would be
politicizing the Senate and this treaty to have the vote and this
debate before the election--we could have done that, but we didn't want
the treaty to get caught up in the election process--we voluntarily
delayed the process to meet and accommodate some of the concerns of
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Then, when we come back
after the election, all of a sudden, we can't do it in a lameduck. We
have to do it down the road.
One colleague came to the floor defending the rights of people who
are not even sworn in as Senators to somehow weigh in on this treaty.
They are not Senators. They may have been elected in this election, but
they haven't taken part in the year-and-a-half-long effort of preparing
to deal with this treaty. Every Senator here has. All 100 of us walked
up to the well, raised our hands, swore to uphold the Constitution of
the United States. That Constitution gives us the specific
responsibility of advice and consent on a treaty. That is why we are
here at this moment. If I had had my druthers, we would have been here
weeks ago, but there was always a filibuster, always a delay, always
some longer period that some other piece of legislation was taking.
It is important for colleagues to be honest about that. We have had
125 cloture motions since January of 2009. That is as many cloture
motions as had been filed between 1919 and 1974, between World War I
and the Vietnam war. That is how many cloture motions we had filed
since last year alone. In addition, the Republicans came back to the
minority in 2007, and we have had to file 264 cloture motions to end a
filibuster since 2007. That averages out to 66 per year. In the first
44 years of the existence of this filibuster rule, it was only used
about once a year. For 44 years, it was used once a year. In the last
few years, it has been used 66 times a year. That is why we are here.
That is why we were delayed.
I, personally, look forward, when we return next year, to seeing us
adjust that rule. I respect the rights of the minority because I know
that is what the Founding Fathers intended. But nobody intended that we
have to vote twice to get to a bill, filibuster on the motion to
proceed, filibuster on the substance. It simply doesn't make sense, and
the American people do not support it. It negates the fundamental
concept of majority rule. I am willing to take my lumps, but I think
there is a way to not necessarily undo it completely and still create
responsible action in the Senate.
[[Page 22321]]
Since President Obama took office last year, the Senate has had
rollcall votes on 62 nominations. Of those 62, 27 were confirmed with
90 votes or more; 23 were confirmed with 70 votes or more. That means
that of the 62 nominations, fully 60 of them were confirmed with more
than 70 votes. Over 80 percent of the nominations we have taken votes
on have passed with overwhelming support, and almost all of those
votes, many of them anyway, took place only after an extraordinarily
lengthy delay. Many of these nominations sat on the calendar for over
100 days while people waited for the Senate to act.
On average, the Senate has taken more than five times longer to
confirm a circuit court nomination after it was favorably reported by
the Judiciary and so forth.
I don't want to chew up all our time going through that, but the
record should be fundamentally clear that nobody is rushing anything
here. The START treaty debate, the original START treaty began on
September 28, 1992, and amendments were proposed. As early as the first
day of the debate, they were debating amendments. There were two votes
on amendments on the second day of debate. On the third day, there were
three amendments, and they ratified the treaty. We ought to be able to
move here.
I wish to add a couple thoughts quickly on the subject of the
tactical nukes. A number of Senators have expressed concern about why
this treaty doesn't deal with tactical nuclear weapons. All of us would
agree, you have to acknowledge upfront there is an asymmetry, an
imbalance between the numbers of tactical weapons that the Russians
have and have deployed and what we have. Remember, first, we needed to
replace the original START agreement in order to get verification
measures back into place in order to take the steps then necessary to
go to sort of the next tier. Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates
explained for the record:
A more ambitious treaty that addressed tactical nuclear
weapons would have taken a lot longer to complete, adding
significantly to the time before a successor agreement,
including the verification measures, could enter into force
following START'S expiration in December 2009.
Their fundamental judgment was, yes, we want to get there, but START
itself helps you get there. If we sit without those verification
measures in place that come with START, we make it much harder to
actually reach the agreement we are trying to get to on the tactical.
The logic said: Get this agreement back into place. Revitalize the
cooperation on arms control. That will empower you subsequently to be
able to achieve your goal.
That is not something the Obama administration dreamed up. I
emphasize that to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The
very respected former Secretaries of Defense, Secretary Bill Perry and
Secretary Jim Schlesinger, were part of a bipartisan commission. They
reported that the first step they thought necessary was to deal with
this. They knew nuclear tactical weapons were an issue. But they also
knew our military leaders made it clear they didn't need actual parity
on those weapons. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen both stated, in
response to a question:
Because of the limited range of the tactical weapons and
very different roles from those played by strategic nuclear
forces, the vast majority of Russian tactical nuclear weapons
could not directly influence the strategic nuclear balance
between the United States and Russia.
Donald Rumsfeld told the Foreign Relations Committee in 2002:
I don't know that we would ever want to have symmetry
between the United States and Russia. Their circumstance is
different and their geography's different.
What he is referring to is the vast gulf of the Atlantic Ocean and
then Western Europe that is in between Russia and us and the whole
original tactical decision of Russia in terms of the Warsaw Pact versus
NATO that existed for so many years in the course of the Cold War.
I don't want to be mistaken by my colleagues on the other side. Yes,
we want to limit Russia's nuclear tactical weapons. But a desire to
limit those tactical weapons is not a reason to reject the START
treaty. Frank Miller, who was a senior NSC staffer in the Bush
administration, testified to the Arms Services Committee on July 22:
I believe this Treaty is properly focused on the strategic
forces of both sides. . . . The tactical forces are clearly a
political and military threat to our allies. . . . But I
think throwing this treaty away because we haven't gotten our
hands on the tacticals is not the way to approach this. I
think we have to go after the tacticals separately.
That is exactly what President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary
Clinton, and the rest of our military establishment want to do, but
they want the START treaty as the foundation on which to build that
effort to try to secure something in terms of tactical weapons.
We should pursue a treaty on tactical nuclear weapons, one that can
give us adequate transparency about how many Russia has and that
ultimately reduces that number.
Let me say to my colleagues on the other side, that is precisely why
we put into the resolution of ratification declaration 11, which says:
The Senate calls upon the President to pursue, following
consultation with allies, an agreement with the Russian
Federation that would address the disparity between the
tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles of the Russian Federation
and of the United States and would secure and reduce tactical
nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.
We address the issues of tactical nuclear weapons, and it was not an
oversight. It was a calculated, tactical decision to lay the
foundation, renew the relationship with Russia, renew our arms control
understandings, and lay the foundation to be able to reach an
agreement. That is what Secretary Gates said when he testified before
the Armed Services Committee on June 17. He said:
We will never get to that step [of reductions] with the
Russians on tactical nukes if this treaty on strategic
nuclear weapons is not ratified.
Secretary Gates, appointed by President Bush, said clearly: If we do
not ratify this treaty, we do not get to the treaty on tactical nuclear
weapons.
So I think the imperative could not be more clear.
The Eastern European leaders see this the same way. And they, after
all, are the ones more directly threatened by those weapons. Poland's
foreign minister wrote, on November 20, our NATO allies see ``New START
is a necessary stepping-stone to future negotiations with Russia about
reductions in tactical nuclear arsenals, and a prerequisite for the
successful revival of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.''
The Secretary-General of NATO said the same thing. He said that we need
``transparency and reductions of short-range, tactical nuclear weapons
in Europe. . . . This is a key concern for allies. . . . But we cannot
address this disparity until the New Start treaty is ratified.''
I hope our colleagues will stand with our allies and stand with
common sense and ratify this treaty so we can get to the issue of
tactical nuclear weapons.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, first of all, let me say that there are
big issues and small issues, some of substantial consequence, others
that are of minor importance that are debated here on the floor of the
Senate.
This is one of those big issues, one of significant importance, not
just to us but to the world. While we get involved in a lot of details
in this discussion, the question to be resolved in all of the efforts
that are made here dealing with nuclear weapons is, Will we be able to
find a way to prevent the explosion of a nuclear weapon in a major city
on this planet that will kill hundreds of thousands of people?
The answer to that question comes from efforts about whether we are
able to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to keep nuclear weapons out
of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations, and then begin to reduce
the number of nuclear weapons.
Let me read, for a moment, from Time magazine in 2002. It refers to
something that happened exactly 1
[[Page 22322]]
month after 9/11, 2001--the terrible attack that occurred in this
country by terrorists that murdered over 3,000 Americans.
One month later, October 11, 2001, something happened. It was
described in Time magazine because it was not readily known around the
rest of the country what had happened. Let me read it:
For a few harrowing weeks last fall--
Referring to October 2001--
a group of U.S. officials believed that the worst nightmare
of their lives, something even more horrific than 9/11, was
about to come true. In October, an intelligence alert went
out to a small number of government agencies, including the
Energy Department's top secret Nuclear Emergency Search Team
based in Nevada. The report said that terrorists were thought
to have obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian
arsenal and planned to smuggle it into New York City. The
source of the report was a mercurial agent code named
dragonfire, who intelligence officials believed was of
``undetermined'' reliability. But dragonfire's claim tracked
with a report from a Russian general who believed that his
forces were missing a 10-kiloton nuclear device.
Detonated in lower Manhattan, a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb would kill
about 100,000 civilians and irradiate 700,000 more, flattening
everything--everything--for a half a mile in diameter. And so
counterterrorist investigators were on their highest alert.
I continue the quote:
``It was brutal,'' a U.S. official told Time magazine. It
was also a highly classified and closely guarded secret.
Under the aegis of the White House's Counterterrorism
Security Group, part of the National Security Council, news
of the suspected nuke was kept secret so as to not panic the
people of New York. Senior FBI officials were not even in the
loop. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he was never told
about the threat. In the end, the investigators found nothing
and concluded that dragonfire's information was false. But
few of them slept better. They had made a chilling
realization: If terrorists had, in fact, managed to smuggle a
nuclear weapon into a city, there was almost nothing anyone
could have done about it.
Here is the number of nuclear weapons on this planet. The story I
just read was about one small nuclear weapon, a Russian 10-kiloton
nuclear weapon. There are roughly 25,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth.
I just described the apoplectic seizure that occurred over the
potential of one 10-kiloton nuclear weapon missing, potentially
acquired by a terrorist, smuggled to New York City, to be detonated in
one of our largest cities.
Russia has about 15,000 nuclear weapons, the United States about
9,000, China a couple hundred, France several hundred, Britain a couple
hundred; and the list goes on.
Now the question is, What do we do about all that? Will we just waltz
along forever and believe that somehow, some way, we will be lucky
enough to make sure nobody ever explodes a nuclear weapon in the middle
of a city on this Earth? Because when they do, all life on this planet
is going to change. What do we do about that? My colleagues say, let's
ratify the START treaty. I fully agree. And there is so much more that
needs to be done beyond that. The work that has been done here on the
floor of the Senate by my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar is
extraordinary work.
Senator Lugar is here, and I do not know that he has been here
previously when I have done this--and people are tired of my doing it,
but it is so important--I have always kept in my desk a small piece of
the wing of a Backfire bomber that was given to me. Senator Lugar is
responsible for this. This is the piece of a wing of a Backfire bomber.
No, we did not shoot it down. Senator Lugar did not shoot it down, nor
did our Air Force. We sawed it up. We sawed the wings off the bomber.
How did that happen? It was done by a the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program in which we actually paid to destroy a Soviet
bomber. It makes a whole lot more sense than being engaged in warfare
to shoot down this bomber.
I have--and I will not show it--in my desk a hinge from a missile
silo that was in the Ukraine that contained a missile with a nuclear
weapon on its tip aimed at the United States of America. It is not
there anymore. Sunflower seeds grow where a missile once resided.
Because of Nunn-Lugar, the American taxpayers and, especially,
importantly, arms negotiations that work. We know this works. This is
not a theory. We know it works to reduce the number of nuclear weapons
by engaging in negotiations and discussions.
I have heard lots of reasons for us not to do this: too soon; not
enough information; not enough detail; more need for consideration--all
of those things. I have always talked about Mark Twain who said the
negative side of a debate never needs any preparation. So I understand
it is easy to come to the floor saying: Do not do this. Do not do this.
But it is those who decide to do things who always prevail to make this
a safer country when you are talking about weapons policies, nuclear
weapons, and arms reduction.
Let me describe why we should do this. First of all, this was
negotiated over a long period of time with the interests of our country
at heart and with substantial negotiation. I was on the National
Security Working Group here in the Senate, and we sat down in secret
briefings on many occasions, having the negotiators themselves come
back and say to us: Here is what we are doing. Let us explain to you
where we are in the negotiations. This treaty did not emerge out of
thin air. All of us were involved and had the ability to understand
what they were doing.
They negotiated a treaty, and we needed to negotiate that treaty
because the circumstances that exist now are that we do not have, given
the previous treaties' expiration, the capability to know what the
other side is doing--the inspection capability.
Let me describe who supports this treaty. Every former Secretary of
State now living, Republican and Democrat: Kissinger, Shultz, Baker,
Eagleburger, Christopher, Albright, Powell, Rice--all of them support
the treaty. They say it is the right thing for this country, it is
important for us to do.
Let me put up especially the comment of Henry Kissinger because he
said it this way:
I recommend ratification of this treaty. . . . It should be
noted I come from the hawkish side of the debate, so I am not
here advocating these measures in the abstract.
He said:
I try to build them into my perception of national
interest. I recommend ratification of this treaty.
I just mentioned my colleague Senator Lugar. He had a partnership
with our former colleague, Senator Nunn, and it is properly called
Nunn-Lugar, and we have talked a lot about it. I have talked about it
many times on the floor of this Senate. It is one of the things we
should be so proud of having done. I am sure Senator Lugar--I have not
talked to him about this--but I am sure he regards it as one of the
significant accomplishments of his career, the Nunn-Lugar program.
As a result of that program, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are
now free of nuclear weapons. Think of that--free of nuclear weapons.
Albania has no more chemical weapons. Madam President, 7,500 nuclear
warheads have been deactivated as a result of this program. The weapons
of mass destruction that have been eliminated: 32 ballistic missile
submarines, 1,400 long-range nuclear missiles, 906 nuclear air-to-
surface missiles, 155 bombers that carried nuclear weapons.
It is not hard to see the success of this. I have shown before--and
will again--the photographs of what Nunn-Lugar means and its success.
You can argue with a lot of things on this floor, but not photographic
evidence, it seems to me. Shown in this photograph is the explosion of
an SS-18 missile silo that held a missile with a nuclear warhead aimed
very likely at an American city.
The silo is gone. The missile is gone. The nuclear warhead is gone.
There are now sunflower seeds planted. It is such an important symbol
of the success of these kinds of agreements.
This next photograph shows the Nunn-Lugar program eliminating a
Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine.
We did not track it in the deep waters of some far away ocean and
decide to engage it and succeed in the engagement. We did not do that
at all.
[[Page 22323]]
We paid money to destroy this submarine.
I have the ground-up copper wire in a little vial in this desk from a
submarine that used to carry missiles aimed at America.
Here is an example of what happened under Nunn-Lugar, dismantling a
Blackjack bomber. We paid to have that bomber destroyed. We did not
shoot it down. We did not have to.
Now this START agreement. ADM Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff--I want everybody to understand this because
there are some people coming to the floor saying: Well, from a military
standpoint, this might leave us vulnerable, short of what we should
have. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says:
I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our
combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind
this new treaty, having had the opportunity to provide our
counsel, to make our recommendations, and to help shape the
final agreements.
We stand behind this treaty, representing the best
strategic interests of this country.
Finally, with respect to the issue of funding, I want to make some
points about that because I chair the subcommittee that funds nuclear
weapons here in the Congress. There has been some discussion that there
is not ample funding here for modernization of our current weapons
programs. That is not the case. It is not true.
Let me describe where we are with respect to funding, and let me
predicate that by saying Linton Brooks was the former NNSA
Administrator; that is, he ran the program dealing with nuclear
weapons, the nuclear weapons complex. Here is what he said:
START, as I now understand it, is a good idea on its own
merits, but I think for those who think it is only a good
idea if you only have a strong weapons program, this budget
ought to take care of that.
He said:
Coupled with the out-year projections, it takes care of the
concerns about the complex, and it does very good things
about the stockpile, and it should keep the labs [the
National Laboratories] healthy.
He says: ``I would have killed for this kind of budget.'' I would
have killed for this kind of budget. This is the man who understands
the money needed to make sure our stockpile of nuclear weapons is a
stockpile you can have confidence in.
So this notion that somehow there is an underfunding or a lack of
funding for the nuclear weapons life extension programs and
modernization programs is sheer nonsense.
Let me describe what we have done. As I said, I chair the
subcommittee that funds these programs. The President in his budget
proposed robust funding. While most other things were held constant--
very little growth, in many cases no growth at all; in some cases, less
funding than in the past--the President said for fiscal year 2011, he
wanted $7 billion for the life extension programs and modernization for
the current nuclear weapons stock, and that is because people are
concerned if we were to use our nuclear weapons, are we assured they
work. Well, you know what. I don't mean to minimize that, but the fact
is we have so many nuclear weapons, as do the Russians and others, that
if one works, unfortunately, it would be a catastrophe for this world.
In fact, if they are used, it will be a catastrophe. But having said
that, the proposal was $7 billion. That was a 10-percent increase over
fiscal year 2010.
So then the President came out with a budget for the fiscal year we
are now going to be in and he said, All right, in response to the
people in the Senate--there were some who were insisting on much more
spending--he said, All right, we did a 10-percent increase for that
year on the programs to modernize our existing nuclear weapons stock,
and we will go to another 10-percent increase for next year, fiscal
year 2012. So we have a 10-percent increase, and another 10-percent
increase.
I was out in North Dakota traveling down some county highway one day
and was listening to the news and they described how money from my
Appropriations Committee was going to be increased by another $4
billion for the next 5 years. I am thinking, that is interesting,
because nobody has told me about that: $4 billion added to this; first
10 percent, then 10 percent, now $4 billion more. And we have people
coming to the floor who have previously talked about the difficulty of
the Federal debt, $13 trillion debt, $1.3 trillion annual budget
deficit, choking and smothering this country in debt. They are saying,
you know what, we don't have enough money. We are getting 10-percent
increases, plus $4 billion; still not enough, we want more. And the
people who run the place say, I would have killed to get a budget like
that.
Someplace somebody has to sober up here in terms of what these
numbers mean. I swear, if you play out the numbers for the next 5
years, the commitment this administration has made for the life
extension programs and the modernization programs for our existing
nuclear weapons stock--there is no question we have the capability to
certify that our nuclear weapons program is workable and that we ought
to have confidence in it.
I don't understand how this debate has moved forward with the notion
that somehow this is underfunded. It is not at all. In fact, there is
funding for buildings that have not yet been designed. We don't ever do
that. In fact, the money for the nuclear weapons program was the only
thing that was stuck in at the last minute in the continuing
resolution. All the other government programs are on a continuing
resolution which means they are being funded at last year's level,
except the nuclear weapons program. That extra money was put in, in the
continuing resolution. Why? To try to satisfy those who apparently have
an insatiable appetite for more and more and more spending in these
areas. We are spending more than at any other time and so much more
than anybody in the world has ever spent on these things. So nobody
should stand up here with any credibility and suggest this is
underfunded. It is not. It is not. The people who understand and run
these programs know it is not, yet some here are trying to shove more
money into these programs for buildings that haven't even been designed
yet. We have never done that before. People know better than that.
Another issue: They say, Well, this is going to limit our ability
with respect to antiballistic missile systems. It does not. That has
long been discredited. There is nothing here that is going to limit
that. They say, Well, but the Russians, they put a provision in that
says that they can withdraw because of missile defense--yes, they put
that in the last START agreement as well. It doesn't mean anything to
us. It is not part of what was agreed to. There is nothing here that is
going to limit us with respect to our antiballistic missile programs to
protect this country and to protect others.
It is so difficult to think this is some other issue. It is not. One
day somebody is going to wake up if we are not smart and if we don't
decide that our highest priority is to reduce the number of nuclear
weapons and stop the spread of nuclear weapons, one day we will all
wake up and we will read a headline that someone has detonated a
nuclear weapon somewhere on this planet and killed hundreds of
thousands of people in the name of a terrorist act. When that happens,
everything about life on this planet is going to change. That is why it
is our responsibility. We are the leading nuclear power on Earth. We
must lead in this area. I have been distressed for 10 years at what
happened in this Senate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This
country never should have turned that down. We did. We are not testing,
but we still should have been the first to ratify the treaty.
The question now is, Will we decide to not be assertive and
aggressive on behalf of arms control treaties we have negotiated
carefully that have strong bipartisan support? Will we decide that is
not important? I hope not. It falls on our shoulders here in the United
States of America to lead the world on these issues. We have to try to
prevent the issues of Korea and Iran and rogue nations and the spread
of others who want nuclear--we have to keep nuclear weapons out of the
hands of those who
[[Page 22324]]
would use them. Then we have to continue to find ways to reduce the
number of nuclear weapons on this Earth. My colleague talked about
tactical nuclear weapons. This doesn't involve tactical nuclear
weapons. I wish it did, but it doesn't. We have to get through this in
order to get to limiting tactical nuclear weapons. The Russians have
far more of them than we do, and the quicker we get to that point of
negotiating tactical weapons, the better off we are.
In conclusion, I was thinking about how easy it is to come to the
floor of the Senate and oppose. The negative side never requires any
preparation. That is the case. Mark Twain was right. Abe Lincoln once
was in a debate with Douglas and Douglas was propounding a rather
strange proposal that Abe Lincoln was discarding and he called it ``as
thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a
pigeon that had starved to death.''
Well, you know, I come here and I listen to some of these debates. I
respect everybody. I do. Everybody comes here with a point. But I will
tell you this: Those who believe this is not in the interest of this
country, those who believe we are not adequately funding our nuclear
weapon stock, those who believe this is going to hinder our ability for
an antiballistic missile system that would protect our country, that is
as thin as the homeopathic soup described by Abraham Lincoln. It is not
accurate.
This is bipartisan. It is important for the country. We ought to do
this sooner, not later.
Let me conclude by saying, the work done by my two colleagues is
strong, assertive, bipartisan work that builds on some very important
work for the last two decades, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar--I don't
know whether there will be ever be a Kerry-Lugar, but there was a Nunn-
Lugar that has been so important to this country and to the safety and
security of this world. I hope this is the next chapter in building
block by block by block this country's responsibility to be a world
leader in saying, We want a world that is safer by keeping nuclear
weapons out of the hands of those who don't have them, and then
aggressively negotiating to try to reduce the nuclear weapons that do
now exist.
Some months ago I was at a place outside of Moscow where my colleague
Senator Lugar has previously visited, and that facility is devoted to
the training and the security of nuclear weapons. I suspect Senator
Lugar, because he knows a lot about this and has worked a lot on it for
a long time, thinks a lot about those issues, as do I. Are we certain
that these 25,000 nuclear weapons spread around the world are always
secure, always safe, will never be subject to theft? The answer to that
is no, but we are trying very hard. This treaty is one more step in the
attempt we must make to exercise our leadership responsibility that is
ours. So my compliments to Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar and to all
of the others who are engaged in this discussion and who have worked so
hard and have done so for decades on these nuclear weapons issue and
arms reduction issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if
in legislative session and as if in morning business for the purpose of
clearing processed legislative language.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. For the information of my colleagues, I will run through
these unanimous consent requests and then be completed.
____________________
GPRA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2010
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 678, H.R. 2142.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2142) to require quarterly performance
assessments of Government programs for purposes of assessing
agency performance and improvement, and to establish agency
performance improvement officers and the Performance
Improvement Council.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, with an amendment to strike all after the
enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``GPRA
Modernization Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Strategic planning amendments.
Sec. 3. Performance planning amendments.
Sec. 4. Performance reporting amendments.
Sec. 5. Federal Government and agency priority goals.
Sec. 6. Quarterly priority progress reviews and use of performance
information.
Sec. 7. Transparency of Federal Government programs, priority goals,
and results.
Sec. 8. Agency Chief Operating Officers.
Sec. 9. Agency Performance Improvement Officers and the Performance
Improvement Council.
Sec. 10. Format of performance plans and reports.
Sec. 11. Reducing duplicative and outdated agency reporting.
Sec. 12. Performance management skills and competencies.
Sec. 13. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 14. Implementation of this Act.
Sec. 15. Congressional oversight and legislation.
SEC. 2. STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENTS.
Chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 306 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 306. Agency strategic plans
``(a) Not later than the first Monday in February of any
year following the year in which the term of the President
commences under section 101 of title 3, the head of each
agency shall make available on the public website of the
agency a strategic plan and notify the President and Congress
of its availability. Such plan shall contain--
``(1) a comprehensive mission statement covering the major
functions and operations of the agency;
``(2) general goals and objectives, including outcome-
oriented goals, for the major functions and operations of the
agency;
``(3) a description of how any goals and objectives
contribute to the Federal Government priority goals required
by section 1120(a) of title 31;
``(4) a description of how the goals and objectives are to
be achieved, including--
``(A) a description of the operational processes, skills
and technology, and the human, capital, information, and
other resources required to achieve those goals and
objectives; and
``(B) a description of how the agency is working with other
agencies to achieve its goals and objectives as well as
relevant Federal Government priority goals;
``(5) a description of how the goals and objectives
incorporate views and suggestions obtained through
congressional consultations required under subsection (d);
``(6) a description of how the performance goals provided
in the plan required by section 1115(a) of title 31,
including the agency priority goals required by section
1120(b) of title 31, if applicable, contribute to the general
goals and objectives in the strategic plan;
``(7) an identification of those key factors external to
the agency and beyond its control that could significantly
affect the achievement of the general goals and objectives;
and
``(8) a description of the program evaluations used in
establishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a
schedule for future program evaluations to be conducted.
``(b) The strategic plan shall cover a period of not less
than 4 years following the fiscal year in which the plan is
submitted. As needed, the head of the agency may make
adjustments to the strategic plan to reflect significant
changes in the environment in which the agency is operating,
with appropriate notification of Congress.
``(c) The performance plan required by section 1115(b) of
title 31 shall be consistent with the agency's strategic
plan. A performance plan may not be submitted for a fiscal
year not covered by a current strategic plan under this
section.
``(d) When developing or making adjustments to a strategic
plan, the agency shall consult periodically with the
Congress, including majority and minority views from the
appropriate authorizing, appropriations, and oversight
committees, and shall solicit and consider the views and
suggestions of those entities potentially affected by or
interested in such a plan. The agency shall consult with the
appropriate committees of Congress at least once every 2
years.
``(e) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently governmental functions. The
drafting of strategic plans under this section shall be
performed only by Federal employees.
``(f) For purposes of this section the term `agency' means
an Executive agency defined under section 105, but does not
include the Central Intelligence Agency, the Government
Accountability Office, the United States Postal
[[Page 22325]]
Service, and the Postal Regulatory Commission.''.
SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE PLANNING AMENDMENTS.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 1115 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1115. Federal Government and agency performance plans
``(a) Federal Government Performance Plans.--In carrying
out the provisions of section 1105(a)(28), the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall coordinate with
agencies to develop the Federal Government performance plan.
In addition to the submission of such plan with each budget
of the United States Government, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall ensure that all information
required by this subsection is concurrently made available on
the website provided under section 1122 and updated
periodically, but no less than annually. The Federal
Government performance plan shall--
``(1) establish Federal Government performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved during the
year in which the plan is submitted and the next fiscal year
for each of the Federal Government priority goals required
under section 1120(a) of this title;
``(2) identify the agencies, organizations, program
activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and
other activities contributing to each Federal Government
performance goal during the current fiscal year;
``(3) for each Federal Government performance goal,
identify a lead Government official who shall be responsible
for coordinating the efforts to achieve the goal;
``(4) establish common Federal Government performance
indicators with quarterly targets to be used in measuring or
assessing--
``(A) overall progress toward each Federal Government
performance goal; and
``(B) the individual contribution of each agency,
organization, program activity, regulation, tax expenditure,
policy, and other activity identified under paragraph (2);
``(5) establish clearly defined quarterly milestones; and
``(6) identify major management challenges that are
Governmentwide or crosscutting in nature and describe plans
to address such challenges, including relevant performance
goals, performance indicators, and milestones.
``(b) Agency Performance Plans.--Not later than the first
Monday in February of each year, the head of each agency
shall make available on a public website of the agency, and
notify the President and the Congress of its availability, a
performance plan covering each program activity set forth in
the budget of such agency. Such plan shall--
``(1) establish performance goals to define the level of
performance to be achieved during the year in which the plan
is submitted and the next fiscal year;
``(2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and
measurable form unless authorized to be in an alternative
form under subsection (c);
``(3) describe how the performance goals contribute to--
``(A) the general goals and objectives established in the
agency's strategic plan required by section 306(a)(2) of
title 5; and
``(B) any of the Federal Government performance goals
established in the Federal Government performance plan
required by subsection (a)(1);
``(4) identify among the performance goals those which are
designated as agency priority goals as required by section
1120(b) of this title, if applicable;
``(5) provide a description of how the performance goals
are to be achieved, including--
``(A) the operation processes, training, skills and
technology, and the human, capital, information, and other
resources and strategies required to meet those performance
goals;
``(B) clearly defined milestones;
``(C) an identification of the organizations, program
activities, regulations, policies, and other activities that
contribute to each performance goal, both within and external
to the agency;
``(D) a description of how the agency is working with other
agencies to achieve its performance goals as well as relevant
Federal Government performance goals; and
``(E) an identification of the agency officials responsible
for the achievement of each performance goal, who shall be
known as goal leaders;
``(6) establish a balanced set of performance indicators to
be used in measuring or assessing progress toward each
performance goal, including, as appropriate, customer
service, efficiency, output, and outcome indicators;
``(7) provide a basis for comparing actual program results
with the established performance goals;
``(8) a description of how the agency will ensure the
accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress
towards its performance goals, including an identification
of--
``(A) the means to be used to verify and validate measured
values;
``(B) the sources for the data;
``(C) the level of accuracy required for the intended use
of the data;
``(D) any limitations to the data at the required level of
accuracy; and
``(E) how the agency will compensate for such limitations
if needed to reach the required level of accuracy;
``(9) describe major management challenges the agency faces
and identify--
``(A) planned actions to address such challenges;
``(B) performance goals, performance indicators, and
milestones to measure progress toward resolving such
challenges; and
``(C) the agency official responsible for resolving such
challenges; and
``(10) identify low-priority program activities based on an
analysis of their contribution to the mission and goals of
the agency and include an evidence-based justification for
designating a program activity as low priority.
``(c) Alternative Form.--If an agency, in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
determines that it is not feasible to express the performance
goals for a particular program activity in an objective,
quantifiable, and measurable form, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget may authorize an alternative form.
Such alternative form shall--
``(1) include separate descriptive statements of--
``(A)(i) a minimally effective program; and
``(ii) a successful program; or
``(B) such alternative as authorized by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, with sufficient precision
and in such terms that would allow for an accurate,
independent determination of whether the program activity's
performance meets the criteria of the description; or
``(2) state why it is infeasible or impractical to express
a performance goal in any form for the program activity.
``(d) Treatment of Program Activities.--For the purpose of
complying with this section, an agency may aggregate,
disaggregate, or consolidate program activities, except that
any aggregation or consolidation may not omit or minimize the
significance of any program activity constituting a major
function or operation for the agency.
``(e) Appendix.--An agency may submit with an annual
performance plan an appendix covering any portion of the plan
that--
``(1) is specifically authorized under criteria established
by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of
national defense or foreign policy; and
``(2) is properly classified pursuant to such Executive
order.
``(f) Inherently Governmental Functions.--The functions and
activities of this section shall be considered to be
inherently governmental functions. The drafting of
performance plans under this section shall be performed only
by Federal employees.
``(g) Chief Human Capital Officers.--With respect to each
agency with a Chief Human Capital Officer, the Chief Human
Capital Officer shall prepare that portion of the annual
performance plan described under subsection (b)(5)(A).
``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section and
sections 1116 through 1125, and sections 9703 and 9704, the
term--
``(1) `agency' has the same meaning as such term is defined
under section 306(f) of title 5;
``(2) `crosscutting' means across organizational (such as
agency) boundaries;
``(3) `customer service measure' means an assessment of
service delivery to a customer, client, citizen, or other
recipient, which can include an assessment of quality,
timeliness, and satisfaction among other factors;
``(4) `efficiency measure' means a ratio of a program
activity's inputs (such as costs or hours worked by
employees) to its outputs (amount of products or services
delivered) or outcomes (the desired results of a program);
``(5) `major management challenge' means programs or
management functions, within or across agencies, that have
greater vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement (such as issues identified by the Government
Accountability Office as high risk or issues identified by an
Inspector General) where a failure to perform well could
seriously affect the ability of an agency or the Government
to achieve its mission or goals;
``(6) `milestone' means a scheduled event signifying the
completion of a major deliverable or a set of related
deliverables or a phase of work;
``(7) `outcome measure' means an assessment of the results
of a program activity compared to its intended purpose;
``(8) `output measure' means the tabulation, calculation,
or recording of activity or effort that can be expressed in a
quantitative or qualitative manner;
``(9) `performance goal' means a target level of
performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective,
against which actual achievement can be compared, including a
goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate;
``(10) `performance indicator' means a particular value or
characteristic used to measure output or outcome;
``(11) `program activity' means a specific activity or
project as listed in the program and financing schedules of
the annual budget of the United States Government; and
``(12) `program evaluation' means an assessment, through
objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner
and extent to which Federal programs achieve intended
objectives.''.
SEC. 4. PERFORMANCE REPORTING AMENDMENTS.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 1116 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1116. Agency performance reporting
``(a) The head of each agency shall make available on a
public website of the agency and to the Office of Management
and Budget an update on agency performance.
``(b)(1) Each update shall compare actual performance
achieved with the performance goals
[[Page 22326]]
established in the agency performance plan under section
1115(b) and shall occur no less than 150 days after the end
of each fiscal year, with more frequent updates of actual
performance on indicators that provide data of significant
value to the Government, Congress, or program partners at a
reasonable level of administrative burden.
``(2) If performance goals are specified in an alternative
form under section 1115(c), the results shall be described in
relation to such specifications, including whether the
performance failed to meet the criteria of a minimally
effective or successful program.
``(c) Each update shall--
``(1) review the success of achieving the performance goals
and include actual results for the 5 preceding fiscal years;
``(2) evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal
year relative to the performance achieved toward the
performance goals during the period covered by the update;
``(3) explain and describe where a performance goal has not
been met (including when a program activity's performance is
determined not to have met the criteria of a successful
program activity under section 1115(c)(1)(A)(ii) or a
corresponding level of achievement if another alternative
form is used)--
``(A) why the goal was not met;
``(B) those plans and schedules for achieving the
established performance goal; and
``(C) if the performance goal is impractical or infeasible,
why that is the case and what action is recommended;
``(4) describe the use and assess the effectiveness in
achieving performance goals of any waiver under section 9703
of this title;
``(5) include a review of the performance goals and
evaluation of the performance plan relative to the agency's
strategic human capital management;
``(6) describe how the agency ensures the accuracy and
reliability of the data used to measure progress towards its
performance goals, including an identification of--
``(A) the means used to verify and validate measured
values;
``(B) the sources for the data;
``(C) the level of accuracy required for the intended use
of the data;
``(D) any limitations to the data at the required level of
accuracy; and
``(E) how the agency has compensated for such limitations
if needed to reach the required level of accuracy; and
``(7) include the summary findings of those program
evaluations completed during the period covered by the
update.
``(d) If an agency performance update includes any program
activity or information that is specifically authorized under
criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret
in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is
properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order, the
head of the agency shall make such information available in
the classified appendix provided under section 1115(e).
``(e) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently governmental functions. The
drafting of agency performance updates under this section
shall be performed only by Federal employees.
``(f) Each fiscal year, the Office of Management and Budget
shall determine whether the agency programs or activities
meet performance goals and objectives outlined in the agency
performance plans and submit a report on unmet goals to--
``(1) the head of the agency;
``(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
``(3) the Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform of
the House of Representatives; and
``(4) the Government Accountability Office.
``(g) If an agency's programs or activities have not met
performance goals as determined by the Office of Management
and Budget for 1 fiscal year, the head of the agency shall
submit a performance improvement plan to the Office of
Management and Budget to increase program effectiveness for
each unmet goal with measurable milestones. The agency shall
designate a senior official who shall oversee the performance
improvement strategies for each unmet goal.
``(h)(1) If the Office of Management and Budget determines
that agency programs or activities have unmet performance
goals for 2 consecutive fiscal years, the head of the agency
shall--
``(A) submit to Congress a description of the actions the
Administration will take to improve performance, including
proposed statutory changes or planned executive actions; and
``(B) describe any additional funding the agency will
obligate to achieve the goal, if such an action is determined
appropriate in consultation with the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, for an amount determined
appropriate by the Director.
``(2) In providing additional funding described under
paragraph (1)(B), the head of the agency shall use any
reprogramming or transfer authority available to the agency.
If after exercising such authority additional funding is
necessary to achieve the level determined appropriate by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of
the agency shall submit a request to Congress for additional
reprogramming or transfer authority.
``(i) If an agency's programs or activities have not met
performance goals as determined by the Office of Management
and Budget for 3 consecutive fiscal years, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall submit
recommendations to Congress on actions to improve performance
not later than 60 days after that determination, including--
``(1) reauthorization proposals for each program or
activity that has not met performance goals;
``(2) proposed statutory changes necessary for the program
activities to achieve the proposed level of performance on
each performance goal; and
``(3) planned executive actions or identification of the
program for termination or reduction in the President's
budget.''.
SEC. 5. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AGENCY PRIORITY GOALS.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 1119 the following:
``Sec. 1120. Federal Government and agency priority goals
``(a) Federal Government Priority Goals.--
``(1) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall coordinate with agencies to develop priority goals to
improve the performance and management of the Federal
Government. Such Federal Government priority goals shall
include--
``(A) outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of
crosscutting policy areas; and
``(B) goals for management improvements needed across the
Federal Government, including--
``(i) financial management;
``(ii) human capital management;
``(iii) information technology management;
``(iv) procurement and acquisition management; and
``(v) real property management;
``(2) The Federal Government priority goals shall be long-
term in nature. At a minimum, the Federal Government priority
goals shall be updated or revised every 4 years and made
publicly available concurrently with the submission of the
budget of the United States Government made in the first full
fiscal year following any year in which the term of the
President commences under section 101 of title 3. As needed,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may make
adjustments to the Federal Government priority goals to
reflect significant changes in the environment in which the
Federal Government is operating, with appropriate
notification of Congress.
``(3) When developing or making adjustments to Federal
Government priority goals, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall consult periodically with the
Congress, including obtaining majority and minority views
from--
``(A) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives;
``(B) the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and the
House of Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
``(D) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of
the House of Representatives;
``(E) the Committee on Finance of the Senate;
``(F) the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives; and
``(G) any other committees as determined appropriate;
``(4) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall consult with the appropriate committees of Congress at
least once every 2 years.
``(5) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall make information about the Federal Government priority
goals available on the website described under section 1122
of this title.
``(6) The Federal Government performance plan required
under section 1115(a) of this title shall be consistent with
the Federal Government priority goals.
``(b) Agency Priority Goals.--
``(1) Every 2 years, the head of each agency listed in
section 901(b) of this title, or as otherwise determined by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall
identify agency priority goals from among the performance
goals of the agency. The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall determine the total number of agency
priority goals across the Government, and the number to be
developed by each agency. The agency priority goals shall--
``(A) reflect the highest priorities of the agency, as
determined by the head of the agency and informed by the
Federal Government priority goals provided under subsection
(a) and the consultations with Congress and other interested
parties required by section 306(d) of title 5;
``(B) have ambitious targets that can be achieved within a
2-year period;
``(C) have a clearly identified agency official, known as a
goal leader, who is responsible for the achievement of each
agency priority goal;
``(D) have interim quarterly targets for performance
indicators if more frequent updates of actual performance
provides data of significant value to the Government,
Congress, or program partners at a reasonable level of
administrative burden; and
``(E) have clearly defined quarterly milestones.
``(2) If an agency priority goal includes any program
activity or information that is specifically authorized under
criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret
in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is
properly classified pursuant to such Executive order, the
head of the agency shall make such information available in
the classified appendix provided under section 1115(e).
``(c) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently governmental functions. The
development of Federal
[[Page 22327]]
Government and agency priority goals shall be performed only
by Federal employees.''.
SEC. 6. QUARTERLY PRIORITY PROGRESS REVIEWS AND USE OF
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 1120 (as added by section 5 of this Act)
the following:
``Sec. 1121. Quarterly priority progress reviews and use of
performance information
``(a) Use of Performance Information to Achieve Federal
Government Priority Goals.--Not less than quarterly, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with the
support of the Performance Improvement Council, shall--
``(1) for each Federal Government priority goal required by
section 1120(a) of this title, review with the appropriate
lead Government official the progress achieved during the
most recent quarter, overall trend data, and the likelihood
of meeting the planned level of performance;
``(2) include in such reviews officials from the agencies,
organizations, and program activities that contribute to the
accomplishment of each Federal Government priority goal;
``(3) assess whether agencies, organizations, program
activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and
other activities are contributing as planned to each Federal
Government priority goal;
``(4) categorize the Federal Government priority goals by
risk of not achieving the planned level of performance; and
``(5) for the Federal Government priority goals at greatest
risk of not meeting the planned level of performance,
identify prospects and strategies for performance
improvement, including any needed changes to agencies,
organizations, program activities, regulations, tax
expenditures, policies or other activities.
``(b) Agency Use of Performance Information to Achieve
Agency Priority Goals.--Not less than quarterly, at each
agency required to develop agency priority goals required by
section 1120(b) of this title, the head of the agency and
Chief Operating Officer, with the support of the agency
Performance Improvement Officer, shall--
``(1) for each agency priority goal, review with the
appropriate goal leader the progress achieved during the most
recent quarter, overall trend data, and the likelihood of
meeting the planned level of performance;
``(2) coordinate with relevant personnel within and outside
the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each
agency priority goal;
``(3) assess whether relevant organizations, program
activities, regulations, policies, and other activities are
contributing as planned to the agency priority goals;
``(4) categorize agency priority goals by risk of not
achieving the planned level of performance; and
``(5) for agency priority goals at greatest risk of not
meeting the planned level of performance, identify prospects
and strategies for performance improvement, including any
needed changes to agency program activities, regulations,
policies, or other activities.''.
SEC. 7. TRANSPARENCY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, PRIORITY
GOALS, AND RESULTS.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 1121 (as added by section 6 of this Act)
the following:
``Sec. 1122. Transparency of programs, priority goals, and
results
``(a) Transparency of Agency Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2012, the
Office of Management and Budget shall--
``(A) ensure the effective operation of a single website;
``(B) at a minimum, update the website on a quarterly
basis; and
``(C) include on the website information about each program
identified by the agencies.
``(2) Information.--Information for each program described
under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) an identification of how the agency defines the term
`program', consistent with guidance provided by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, including the program
activities that are aggregated, disaggregated, or
consolidated to be considered a program by the agency;
``(B) a description of the purposes of the program and the
contribution of the program to the mission and goals of the
agency; and
``(C) an identification of funding for the current fiscal
year and previous 2 fiscal years.
``(b) Transparency of Agency Priority Goals and Results.--
The head of each agency required to develop agency priority
goals shall make information about each agency priority goal
available to the Office of Management and Budget for
publication on the website, with the exception of any
information covered by section 1120(b)(2) of this title. In
addition to an identification of each agency priority goal,
the website shall also consolidate information about each
agency priority goal, including--
``(1) a description of how the agency incorporated any
views and suggestions obtained through congressional
consultations about the agency priority goal;
``(2) an identification of key factors external to the
agency and beyond its control that could significantly affect
the achievement of the agency priority goal;
``(3) a description of how each agency priority goal will
be achieved, including--
``(A) the strategies and resources required to meet the
priority goal;
``(B) clearly defined milestones;
``(C) the organizations, program activities, regulations,
policies, and other activities that contribute to each goal,
both within and external to the agency;
``(D) how the agency is working with other agencies to
achieve the goal; and
``(E) an identification of the agency official responsible
for achieving the priority goal;
``(4) the performance indicators to be used in measuring or
assessing progress;
``(5) a description of how the agency ensures the accuracy
and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards
the priority goal, including an identification of--
``(A) the means used to verify and validate measured
values;
``(B) the sources for the data;
``(C) the level of accuracy required for the intended use
of the data;
``(D) any limitations to the data at the required level of
accuracy; and
``(E) how the agency has compensated for such limitations
if needed to reach the required level of accuracy;
``(6) the results achieved during the most recent quarter
and overall trend data compared to the planned level of
performance;
``(7) an assessment of whether relevant organizations,
program activities, regulations, policies, and other
activities are contributing as planned;
``(8) an identification of the agency priority goals at
risk of not achieving the planned level of performance; and
``(9) any prospects or strategies for performance
improvement.
``(c) Transparency of Federal Government Priority Goals and
Results.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall also make available on the website--
``(1) a brief description of each of the Federal Government
priority goals required by section 1120(a) of this title;
``(2) a description of how the Federal Government priority
goals incorporate views and suggestions obtained through
congressional consultations;
``(3) the Federal Government performance goals and
performance indicators associated with each Federal
Government priority goal as required by section 1115(a) of
this title;
``(4) an identification of the lead Government official for
each Federal Government performance goal;
``(5) the results achieved during the most recent quarter
and overall trend data compared to the planned level of
performance;
``(6) an identification of the agencies, organizations,
program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies,
and other activities that contribute to each Federal
Government priority goal;
``(7) an assessment of whether relevant agencies,
organizations, program activities, regulations, tax
expenditures, policies, and other activities are contributing
as planned;
``(8) an identification of the Federal Government priority
goals at risk of not achieving the planned level of
performance; and
``(9) any prospects or strategies for performance
improvement.
``(d) Information on Website.--The information made
available on the website under this section shall be readily
accessible and easily found on the Internet by the public and
members and committees of Congress. Such information shall
also be presented in a searchable, machine-readable format.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
issue guidance to ensure that such information is provided in
a way that presents a coherent picture of all Federal
programs, and the performance of the Federal Government as
well as individual agencies.''.
SEC. 8. AGENCY CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERS.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 1122 (as added by section 7 of this Act)
the following:
``Sec. 1123. Chief Operating Officers
``(a) Establishment.--At each agency, the deputy head of
agency, or equivalent, shall be the Chief Operating Officer
of the agency.
``(b) Function.--Each Chief Operating Officer shall be
responsible for improving the management and performance of
the agency, and shall--
``(1) provide overall organization management to improve
agency performance and achieve the mission and goals of the
agency through the use of strategic and performance planning,
measurement, analysis, regular assessment of progress, and
use of performance information to improve the results
achieved;
``(2) advise and assist the head of agency in carrying out
the requirements of sections 1115 through 1122 of this title
and section 306 of title 5;
``(3) oversee agency-specific efforts to improve management
functions within the agency and across Government; and
``(4) coordinate and collaborate with relevant personnel
within and external to the agency who have a significant role
in contributing to and achieving the mission and goals of the
agency, such as the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human
Capital Officer, Chief Acquisition Officer/Senior Procurement
Executive, Chief Information Officer, and other line of
business chiefs at the agency.''.
SEC. 9. AGENCY PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OFFICERS AND THE
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL.
Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 1123 (as added by section 8 of this Act)
the following:
[[Page 22328]]
``Sec. 1124. Performance Improvement Officers and the
Performance Improvement Council
``(a) Performance Improvement Officers.--
``(1) Establishment.--At each agency, the head of the
agency, in consultation with the agency Chief Operating
Officer, shall designate a senior executive of the agency as
the agency Performance Improvement Officer.
``(2) Function.--Each Performance Improvement Officer shall
report directly to the Chief Operating Officer. Subject to
the direction of the Chief Operating Officer, each
Performance Improvement Officer shall--
``(A) advise and assist the head of the agency and the
Chief Operating Officer to ensure that the mission and goals
of the agency are achieved through strategic and performance
planning, measurement, analysis, regular assessment of
progress, and use of performance information to improve the
results achieved;
``(B) advise the head of the agency and the Chief Operating
Officer on the selection of agency goals, including
opportunities to collaborate with other agencies on common
goals;
``(C) assist the head of the agency and the Chief Operating
Officer in overseeing the implementation of the agency
strategic planning, performance planning, and reporting
requirements provided under sections 1115 through 1122 of
this title and sections 306 of title 5, including the
contributions of the agency to the Federal Government
priority goals;
``(D) support the head of agency and the Chief Operating
Officer in the conduct of regular reviews of agency
performance, including at least quarterly reviews of progress
achieved toward agency priority goals, if applicable;
``(E) assist the head of the agency and the Chief Operating
Officer in the development and use within the agency of
performance measures in personnel performance appraisals,
and, as appropriate, other agency personnel and planning
processes and assessments; and
``(F) ensure that agency progress toward the achievement of
all goals is communicated to leaders, managers, and employees
in the agency and Congress, and made available on a public
website of the agency.
``(b) Performance Improvement Council.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established a Performance
Improvement Council, consisting of--
``(A) the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of
Management and Budget, who shall act as chairperson of the
Council;
``(B) the Performance Improvement Officer from each agency
defined in section 901(b) of this title;
``(C) other Performance Improvement Officers as determined
appropriate by the chairperson; and
``(D) other individuals as determined appropriate by the
chairperson.
``(2) Function.--The Performance Improvement Council
shall--
``(A) be convened by the chairperson or the designee of the
chairperson, who shall preside at the meetings of the
Performance Improvement Council, determine its agenda, direct
its work, and establish and direct subgroups of the
Performance Improvement Council, as appropriate, to deal with
particular subject matters;
``(B) assist the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to improve the performance of the Federal Government
and achieve the Federal Government priority goals;
``(C) assist the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget in implementing the planning, reporting, and use of
performance information requirements related to the Federal
Government priority goals provided under sections 1115, 1120,
1121, and 1122 of this title;
``(D) work to resolve specific Governmentwide or
crosscutting performance issues, as necessary;
``(E) facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices
that have led to performance improvements within specific
programs, agencies, or across agencies;
``(F) coordinate with other interagency management
councils;
``(G) seek advice and information as appropriate from
nonmember agencies, particularly smaller agencies;
``(H) consider the performance improvement experiences of
corporations, nonprofit organizations, foreign, State, and
local governments, Government employees, public sector
unions, and customers of Government services;
``(I) receive such assistance, information and advice from
agencies as the Council may request, which agencies shall
provide to the extent permitted by law; and
``(J) develop and submit to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, or when appropriate to the President
through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
at times and in such formats as the chairperson may specify,
recommendations to streamline and improve performance
management policies and requirements.
``(3) Support.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator of General Services
shall provide administrative and other support for the
Council to implement this section.
``(B) Personnel.--The heads of agencies with Performance
Improvement Officers serving on the Council shall, as
appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, provide at
the request of the chairperson of the Performance Improvement
Council up to 2 personnel authorizations to serve at the
direction of the chairperson.''.
SEC. 10. FORMAT OF PERFORMANCE PLANS AND REPORTS.
(a) Searchable, Machine-readable Plans and Reports.--For
fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, each agency
required to produce strategic plans, performance plans, and
performance updates in accordance with the amendments made by
this Act shall--
(1) not incur expenses for the printing of strategic plans,
performance plans, and performance reports for release
external to the agency, except when providing such documents
to the Congress;
(2) produce such plans and reports in searchable, machine-
readable formats; and
(3) make such plans and reports available on the website
described under section 1122 of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Web-based Performance Planning and Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2012, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidance
to agencies to provide concise and timely performance
information for publication on the website described under
section 1122 of title 31, United States Code, including, at a
minimum, all requirements of sections 1115 and 1116 of title
31, United States Code, except for section 1115(e).
(2) High-priority goals.--For agencies required to develop
agency priority goals under section 1120(b) of title 31,
United States Code, the performance information required
under this section shall be merged with the existing
information required under section 1122 of title 31, United
States Code.
(3) Considerations.--In developing guidance under this
subsection, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall take into consideration the experiences of
agencies in making consolidated performance planning and
reporting information available on the website as required
under section 1122 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 11. REDUCING DUPLICATIVE AND OUTDATED AGENCY REPORTING.
(a) Budget Contents.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating second paragraph (33) as paragraph
(35); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(37) the list of plans and reports, as provided for under
section 1125, that agencies identified for elimination or
consolidation because the plans and reports are determined
outdated or duplicative of other required plans and
reports.''.
(b) Elimination of Unnecessary Agency Reporting.--Chapter
11 of title 31, United States Code, is further amended by
adding after section 1124 (as added by section 9 of this Act)
the following:
``Sec. 1125. Elimination of unnecessary agency reporting
``(a) Agency Identification of Unnecessary Reports.--
Annually, based on guidance provided by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Chief Operating Officer
at each agency shall--
``(1) compile a list that identifies all plans and reports
the agency produces for Congress, in accordance with
statutory requirements or as directed in congressional
reports;
``(2) analyze the list compiled under paragraph (1),
identify which plans and reports are outdated or duplicative
of other required plans and reports, and refine the list to
include only the plans and reports identified to be outdated
or duplicative;
``(3) consult with the congressional committees that
receive the plans and reports identified under paragraph (2)
to determine whether those plans and reports are no longer
useful to the committees and could be eliminated or
consolidated with other plans and reports; and
``(4) provide a total count of plans and reports compiled
under paragraph (1) and the list of outdated and duplicative
reports identified under paragraph (2) to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
``(b) Plans and Reports.--
``(1) First year.--During the first year of implementation
of this section, the list of plans and reports identified by
each agency as outdated or duplicative shall be not less than
10 percent of all plans and reports identified under
subsection (a)(1).
``(2) Subsequent years.--In each year following the first
year described under paragraph (1), the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall determine the minimum
percent of plans and reports to be identified as outdated or
duplicative on each list of plans and reports.
``(c) Request for Elimination of Unnecessary Reports.--In
addition to including the list of plans and reports
determined to be outdated or duplicative by each agency in
the budget of the United States Government, as provided by
section 1105(a)(37), the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget may concurrently submit to Congress legislation to
eliminate or consolidate such plans and reports.''.
SEC. 12. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES.
(a) Performance Management Skills and Competencies.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in
consultation with the Performance Improvement Council, shall
identify the key skills and competencies needed by Federal
Government personnel for developing goals, evaluating
programs, and analyzing and using performance information for
the purpose of improving Government efficiency and
effectiveness.
(b) Position Classifications.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, based on the
identifications under subsection (a), the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management shall incorporate, as
appropriate, such key skills and competencies into relevant
position classifications.
[[Page 22329]]
(c) Incorporation Into Existing Agency Training.--Not later
than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management shall work with each
agency, as defined under section 306(f) of title 5, United
States Code, to incorporate the key skills identified under
subsection (a) into training for relevant employees at each
agency.
SEC. 13. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) The table of contents for chapter 3 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to
section 306 and inserting the following:
``306. Agency strategic plans.''.
(b) The table of contents for chapter 11 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating
to section 1115 and 1116 and inserting the following:
``1115. Federal Government and agency performance plans.
``1116. Agency performance reporting.''.
(c) The table of contents for chapter 11 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``1120. Federal Government and agency priority goals.
``1121. Quarterly priority progress reviews and use of performance
information.
``1122. Transparency of programs, priority goals, and results.
``1123. Chief Operating Officers.
``1124. Performance Improvement Officers and the Performance
Improvement Council.
``1125. Elimination of unnecessary agency reporting.''.
SEC. 14. IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT.
(a) Interim Planning and Reporting.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall coordinate with agencies to develop interim
Federal Government priority goals and submit interim Federal
Government performance plans consistent with the requirements
of this Act beginning with the submission of the fiscal year
2013 Budget of the United States Government.
(2) Requirements.--Each agency shall--
(A) not later than February 6, 2012, make adjustments to
its strategic plan to make the plan consistent with the
requirements of this Act;
(B) prepare and submit performance plans consistent with
the requirements of this Act, including the identification of
agency priority goals, beginning with the performance plan
for fiscal year 2013; and
(C) make performance reporting updates consistent with the
requirements of this Act beginning in fiscal year 2012.
(3) Quarterly reviews.--The quarterly priority progress
reviews required under this Act shall begin--
(A) with the first full quarter beginning on or after the
date of enactment of this Act for agencies based on the
agency priority goals contained in the Analytical
Perspectives volume of the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the
United States Government; and
(B) with the quarter ending June 30, 2012 for the interim
Federal Government priority goals.
(b) Guidance.--The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall prepare guidance for agencies in carrying out
the interim planning and reporting activities required under
subsection (a), in addition to other guidance as required for
implementation of this Act.
SEC. 15. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATION.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
limiting the ability of Congress to establish, amend,
suspend, or annul a goal of the Federal Government or an
agency.
(b) GAO Reviews.--
(1) Interim planning and reporting evaluation.--Not later
than June 30, 2013, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to Congress that includes--
(A) an evaluation of the implementation of the interim
planning and reporting activities conducted under section 14
of this Act; and
(B) any recommendations for improving implementation of
this Act as determined appropriate.
(2) Implementation evaluations.--
(A) In general.--The Comptroller General shall evaluate the
implementation of this Act subsequent to the interim planning
and reporting activities evaluated in the report submitted to
Congress under paragraph (1).
(B) Agency implementation.--
(i) Evaluations.--The Comptroller General shall evaluate
how implementation of this Act is affecting performance
management at the agencies described in section 901(b) of
title 31, United States Code, including whether performance
management is being used by those agencies to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of agency programs.
(ii) Reports.--The Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress--
(I) an initial report on the evaluation under clause (i),
not later than September 30, 2015; and
(II) a subsequent report on the evaluation under clause
(i), not later than September 30, 2017.
(C) Federal government planning and reporting
implementation.--
(i) Evaluations.--The Comptroller General shall evaluate
the implementation of the Federal Government priority goals,
Federal Government performance plans and related reporting
required by this Act.
(ii) Reports.--The Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress--
(I) an initial report on the evaluation under clause (i),
not later than September 30, 2015; and
(II) subsequent reports on the evaluation under clause (i),
not later than September 30, 2017 and every 4 years
thereafter.
(D) Recommendations.--The Comptroller General shall include
in the reports required by subparagraphs (B) and (C) any
recommendations for improving implementation of this Act and
for streamlining the planning and reporting requirements of
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as
amended, be read the third time and passed; the motions to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 2142) as amended, was read the third time, and passed.
____________________
REDUCTION OF LEAD IN DRINKING WATER ACT
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 702, S. 3874.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3874) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
reduce lead in drinking water.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third
time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with
no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the
bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3874) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 3874
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 ``Reduction of Lead in
Drinking Water Act''.
SEC. 2. REDUCING LEAD IN DRINKING WATER.
(a) In General.--Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-6) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(4) Exemptions.--The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and
(3) shall not apply to--
``(A) pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, or fixtures,
including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for
nonpotable services such as manufacturing, industrial
processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses
where the water is not anticipated to be used for human
consumption; or
``(B) toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer
valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles, or water
distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter
or larger.''; and
(2) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Definition of Lead Free.--
``(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `lead free' means--
``(A) not containing more than 0.2 percent lead when used
with respect to solder and flux; and
``(B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent lead
when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes, pipe
fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.
``(2) Calculation.--The weighted average lead content of a
pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, or fixture shall be
calculated by using the following formula: For each wetted
component, the percentage of lead in the component shall be
multiplied by the ratio of the wetted surface area of that
component to the total wetted surface area of the entire
product to arrive at the weighted percentage of lead of the
component. The weighted percentage of lead of each wetted
component shall be added together, and the sum of these
weighted percentages shall constitute the weighted average
lead content of the product. The lead content of the material
used to produce wetted components shall be used to determine
compliance with paragraph (1)(B). For lead content of
materials that are provided as a range, the maximum content
of the range shall be used.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The provisions of subsections (a)(4)
and (d) of section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
added by this section, apply beginning on the day that is 36
months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
[[Page 22330]]
____________________
SAFE DRUG DISPOSAL ACT OF 2010
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5809 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5809) to amend the Controlled Substances Act
to provide for take-back disposal of controlled substances in
certain instances, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the substitute at the desk
be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed;
the title amendment be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4818) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The amendment (No. 4819) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the title)
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and modify provisions
relating to the diesel emissions reduction program.''.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 5809), as amended, was passed.
____________________
CLARIFYING THE NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4036 introduced earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4036) to clarify the National Credit Union
Administration authority to make stabilization funding
expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 4036) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 4036
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STABILIZATION FUND.
(a) Additional Advances.--Section 217(c)(3) of the Federal
Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1790e(c)(3)) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``and
any additional advances''.
(b) Assessments.--Section 217 of the Federal Credit Union
Act (12 U.S.C. 1790e) is amended by striking subsection (d)
and inserting the following:
``(d) Assessment Authority.--
``(1) Assessments relating to expenditures under subsection
(b).--In order to make expenditures, as described in
subsection (b), the Board may assess a special premium with
respect to each insured credit union in an aggregate amount
that is reasonably calculated to make any pending or future
expenditure described in subsection (b), which premium shall
be due and payable not later than 60 days after the date of
the assessment. In setting the amount of any assessment under
this subsection, the Board shall take into consideration any
potential impact on credit union earnings that such an
assessment may have.
``(2) Special premiums relating to repayments under
subsection (c)(3).--Not later than 90 days before the
scheduled date of each repayment described in subsection
(c)(3), the Board shall set the amount of the upcoming
repayment and shall determine whether the Stabilization Fund
will have sufficient funds to make the repayment. If the
Stabilization Fund is not likely to have sufficient funds to
make the repayment, the Board shall assess with respect to
each insured credit union a special premium, which shall be
due and payable not later than 60 days after the date of the
assessment, in an aggregate amount calculated to ensure that
the Stabilization Fund is able to make the required
repayment.
``(3) Computation.--Any assessment or premium charge for an
insured credit union under this subsection shall be stated as
a percentage of its insured shares, as represented on the
previous call report of that insured credit union. The
percentage shall be identical for each insured credit union.
Any insured credit union that fails to make timely payment of
the assessment or special premium is subject to the
procedures and penalties described under subsections (d),
(e), and (f) of section 202.''.
SEC. 2. EQUITY RATIO.
Section 202(h)(2) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1782(h)(2)) is amended by striking ``when applied to
the Fund,'' and inserting ``which shall be calculated using
the financial statements of the Fund alone, without any
consolidation or combination with the financial statements of
any other fund or entity,''.
SEC. 3. NET WORTH DEFINITION.
Section 216(o)(2) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1790d(o)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Net worth.--The term `net worth'--
``(A) with respect to any insured credit union, means the
retained earnings balance of the credit union, as determined
under generally accepted accounting principles, together with
any amounts that were previously retained earnings of any
other credit union with which the credit union has combined;
``(B) with respect to any insured credit union, includes,
at the Board's discretion and subject to rules and
regulations established by the Board, assistance provided
under section 208 to facilitate a least-cost resolution
consistent with the best interests of the credit union
system; and
``(C) with respect to a low-income credit union, includes
secondary capital accounts that are--
``(i) uninsured; and
``(ii) subordinate to all other claims against the credit
union, including the claims of creditors, shareholders, and
the Fund.''.
SEC. 4. STUDY OF NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the National Credit Union
Administration's supervision of corporate credit unions and
implementation of prompt corrective action.
(b) Issues to Be Studied.--In conducting the study required
under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall-
(1) determine the reasons for the failure of any corporate
credit union since 2008;
(2) evaluate the adequacy of the National Credit Union
Administration's response to the failures of corporate credit
unions, including with respect to protecting taxpayers,
avoiding moral hazard, minimizing the costs of resolving such
corporate credit unions, and the ability of insured credit
unions to bear any assessments levied to cover such costs;
(3) evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of prompt
corrective action by the National Credit Union Administration
for both insured credit unions and corporate credit unions;
and
(4) examine whether the National Credit Union
Administration has effectively implemented each of the
recommendations by the Inspector General of the National
Credit Union Administration in its Material Loss Review
Reports, and, if not, the adequacy of the National Credit
Union Administration's reasons for not implementing such
recommendation.
(c) Report to Council.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
submit a report on the results of the study required under
this section to--
(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of
the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives; and
(3) the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
(d) Council Report of Action.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of receipt of the report from the Comptroller
General under subsection (c), the Financial Stability
Oversight Council shall submit a report to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives on actions taken in response to the report,
including any recommendations issued to the National Credit
Union Administration under section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5330).
____________________
MEASURES DISCHARGED
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following postal namings be discharged from the Homeland Security
Committee en bloc: S. 3592, H.R. 4602, H.R. 5133, H.R. 5605, H.R. 5606,
H.R. 5655, H.R. 5877, and H.R. 6400.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
[[Page 22331]]
to the immediate consideration of these bills and the immediate
consideration of H.R. 6392 which was received from the House and is at
the desk en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read three
times and passed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements
relating to the bills be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FIRST LIEUTENANT ROBERT WILSON COLLINS POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (S. 3592) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the
``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'', was
ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as
follows:
S. 3592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ROBERT WILSON COLLINS POST OFFICE
BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia,
shall be known and designated as the ``First Lieutenant
Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins
Post Office Building''.
____________________
EMIL BOLAS POST OFFICE
The bill (H.R. 4602) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center,
Ohio, as the ``Emil Bolas Post Office,'' was ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
STAFF SERGEANT FRANK T. CARVILL AND LANCE CORPORAL MICHAEL A. SCHWARZ
POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (H.R. 5133) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt, New Jersey, as
the ``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A.
Schwarz Post Office Building,'' was ordered to a third reading, read
the third time, and passed.
____________________
GEORGE C. MARSHALL POST OFFICE
The bill (H.R. 5605) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown,
Pennsylvania, as the ``George C. Marshall Post Office,'' was ordered to
a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
JAMES M. ``JIMMY'' STEWART POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (H.R. 5606) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania,
as the ``James M. `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office Building,'' was ordered
to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
JESSE J. McCRARY, JR. POST OFFICE
The bill (H.R. 5655) to designate the Little River Branch facility of
the United States Postal Service located at 140 NE 84th Street in
Miami, Florida, as the ``Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. Post Office,'' was
ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
LANCE CORPORAL ALEXANDER SCOTT ARREDONDO, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (H.R. 5877) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 655 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain,
Massachusetts, as the ``Lance Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo,
United States Marine Corps Post Office Building,'' was ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
EARL WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE
The bill (H.R. 6400) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 111 North 6th Street in St. Louis, Missouri,
as the ``Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office,'' was ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
COLONEL GEORGE JUSKALIAN POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (H.R. 6392) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 5003 Westfields Boulevard in Centreville,
Virginia, as the ``Colonel George Juskalian Post Office Building,'' was
ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for
the passage of H.R. 6392, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S.
Postal Service located at 5003 Westfields Boulevard in Centreville, VA,
as the Colonel George Juskalian Post Office Building.
Colonel Juskalian passed away this past Fourth of July, at the age of
96, having served our nation for nearly 30 years on active duty,
including campaigns during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. After
growing up in Massachusetts, he joined the U.S. Army in 1939 and was
called to active duty as a first lieutenant in 1940. He served with
distinction in World War II, during which time he was captured by the
Germans in Tunisia and spent 27 months in prisoner of war camps in
Italy, Germany and Poland.
Upon his return home, Colonel Juskalian served in General
Eisenhower's secretariat in the Pentagon between 1945 and 1948, and
continued to serve our nation with distinction until his retirement
with the rank of colonel in 1967. He received the Army's highest award
for noncombat service, the Legion of Merit, as well as four Silver
Stars, three Bronze Stars, and the Army Commendation Medal, among
others.
Apart from his military service, the colonel was a longtime resident
of Centreville and was actively involved in his community. He was an
active participant in organizations such as the Armenian Assembly of
America, American Legion Post 1995, and the Blue and Grey Veterans of
Foreign Wars Post 8469 up until his death earlier this year. Many knew
the colonel through his volunteer work at local schools, where he
shared his strong belief in giving back to our communities and our
nation, through military service or otherwise.
By passing this bill and naming the Centreville Post Office facility
after Colonel George Juskalian, we will be honoring both Colonel
Juskalian's many years of service as well as the sacrifices made by all
members of the United States Armed Services. H.R. 6392 has the strong
support of the Virginia American Legion, Post 1995, as well as the
local division of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 8469. I have letters
of support from both organizations and, without objection, would like
to submit them for the record.
I applaud the efforts of my friend and colleague in the House,
Congressman Frank Wolf, who united the Virginia delegation as co-
sponsors of this bill and effectively ushered it through the House of
Representatives by a unanimous vote. Now it is time for the Senate to
act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting swift passage of
this bill to honor such a courageous, admirable veteran and proud
Virginian.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
American Legion Post 1995,
Centreville, VA, August 16, 2010.
Hon. Mark R. Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner/Congressman Wolf, It is with great
honor and privilege,
[[Page 22332]]
and on behalf of American Legion Post 1995, Centreville,
Virginia that I submit to you a proposal for designating the
United States Postal Facility located at 5003 Westfields
Boulevard, Centreville, VA as the ``Colonel George Juskalian
Post Office.'' Sadly, Col Juskalian passed away on 4 July
2010.
As Congressman Wolf so eloquently stated in the chambers of
the House of Representatives on 26 July, Col Juskalian, U.S.
Army (Ret.), served the United States with high distinction
for nearly 30 years, including service in WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam.
Colonel Juskalian survived the hardships of being a German
Prisoner of War, enduring nearly three years harsh treatment
in Nazi POW camps. Throughout his ordeal, and in later
service in our nation's wars, he upheld the highest ideals of
American servicemen. In so doing; he earned two Silver Stars
and four Bronze Stars for actions in combat.
Upon leaving the military, he remained a long time resident
of the Commonwealth of Virginia and continued to serve his
community until his death at age 96. He volunteered and
educated our youth in local schools, mainly with a message of
the importance of one's giving back to our community and
nation. He shared a strong belief in serving--in the military
or in other ways--in appreciation for the freedoms and rights
enjoyed by all and paid for by few.
Although Centreville, Virginia has many residents that have
served our nation with distinction, there is no monument,
plaque or memorial dedicated to the men and women of the U.S.
Armed Forces. Naming the Centreville Postal Facility for
Colonel Juskalian would represent a constant reminder to
patrons of the service and sacrifices made by military
veterans in their community.
By placing Colonel Juskalian's name and a small memorial in
the Centreville Post Office, we honor him and all veterans
within our community, past, present, and future.
For God and Country,
Peter F. DeFreece,
Commander.
____
Blue and Gray
Veterans of Foreign War Post 8469,
Fairfax Station, VA, August 16, 2010.
Hon. Mark R. Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner and Congressman Wolf: I am writing on
behalf of our VFW Post, of which the late Colonel George
Juskalian US Army retired was a member, to endorse the
recommendation to designate the United States Post Office at
5003 Westfields Blvd, Centreville, VA as the ``Colonel George
Juskalian Post Office.''
This is what Colonel Juskalian looked like in recent years.
He always sported a smile and he had a quick wit and he was
both an active member of our Post, but he was also the recent
Commander of the local chapter of American Ex-Prisoners of
War. Here is what he looked like after he came home as a hero
of World War II. On 28 January 1943, George rushed forward of
friendly lines to help rescue a reconnaissance patrol which
had been discovered by an overwhelming German force. Although
George was captured and spent the next 27 months in various
prison camps, his valor was recognized by the Army and he was
awarded the Silver Star Medal, our nation's third highest
battlefield award for heroism. While imprisoned with the
British for 3 of his 27 months of captivity, George overcame
continuing claustrophobia and helped dig an escape tunnel but
was transferred to a camp of only US prisoners in Poland
before he could escape. During the bleak late winter of 1945
George and his fellow prisoners were force marched westward
to Hammelburg, Germany just in time to see the ill-fated Baum
rescue force enter their POW camp without enough force to
make it back. George forced an escape anyway and was
ultimately recaptured. He was bombed by US planes near
Nuremburg and watched as 40 of his comrades died, but he was
ultimately liberated by the US 45th Infantry Division.
Upon return to the United States, the scrappy little
officer volunteered to undergo refresher infantry training
and join in the invasion of Japan but the war ended first.
After the war George worked for General of the Army
Eisenhower in the Pentagon and must have done an impressive
job because he was offered a Regular Army commission during a
period when the Army was reduced in size dramatically. During
the Korean conflict, George was offered a plum assignment
away from the fighting but asked instead to be assigned to
Korea. There, George was assigned to command the 1st
Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment of the 7th Infantry
Division, then in combat as part of X Corps. George was
ordered to re-take a key hilltop which had just been captured
by the Chinese, called ``Old Baldy.'' Because high explosives
had denuded the peak, the only covered approach to the
objective was across a minefield, through which a path was
cleared at the point of a bayonet. The battalion's attack was
pressed with such ferocity that much of the hill was re-
taken, but the battalion was decimated and withdrawn under
orders from higher headquarters. George was awarded a Silver
Star for heroism during the action.
After Korea, George had assignments literally around the
world but not surprisingly, fate found George, now a full
Colonel, in Vietnam during 1963-4 assigned initially as a
deputy Corps Advisor in the Mekong Delta, and later as the
Inspector General of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam,
working directly under General William Westmoreland. George
was subsequently assigned as the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Training for the Military District of
Washington and retired on 30 April 1967. George's awards
include: the Silver Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of
Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters,
the Air Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the POW Medal,
numerous campaign medals; the Combat Infantryman Badge with
star, the War Department General Staff Device, and the
Parachutist Badge.
Following retirement, George did volunteer work with
numerous benevolent and veterans groups. From 1974-80, George
was the Director of Graduate Admissions at Southeastern
University while he concurrently studied for his Masters in
Business and Public Administration. He served a three year
appointment to the Veterans Administration Advisory Committee
for Former Prisoners of War. He was active with the scouts
and served in Armenian community relief and religious
organizations and was most recently the Commander of the
local chapter of American Ex-Prisoners of War.
In 1838 a young Abraham Lincoln spoke of ``the generation
just gone to rest,'' and the War for Independence by saying:
``At the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male
had been a participator in some of its scenes. The
consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a
husband, a father, a son or a brother, a living history was
to be found in every family--a history bearing the
indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs
mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the
very scenes related--a history, too, that could be read and
understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the
learned and the unlearned. But those histories are gone. They
can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of
strength; but what invading foemen could never do the silent
artillery of time has done; the leveling of its walls. They
are gone. . . .''
Thousands of our World War II heroes are leaving us every
day. Centreville needs a lasting reminder of their service
and sacrifice for all the generations to come. Please lend
your support to designate the United States Post Office at
5003 Westfields Blvd, Centreville, VA as the ``Colonel George
Juskalian Post Office.'' Thank you for your consideration.
Very respectfully submitted,
Floyd D. Houston,
Commander.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE WORK AND IMPORTANCE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 702 which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 702) recognizing the work and
importance of special education teachers.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The resolution (S. Res. 702) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, read as follows:
S. Res. 702
Whereas, in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that children
with disabilities have the same right to receive a quality
education in the public schools as their nondisabled peers
and, in 1975, the Congress passed Public Law 94-142
guaranteeing students with disabilities the right to a free
appropriate public education;
Whereas, according to the Department of Education,
approximately 6,600,000 children (roughly 13 percent of all
school-aged children) receive special education services;
Whereas there are over 370,000 highly qualified special
education teachers in the United States;
Whereas the work of special education teachers requires
special education teachers to be able to interact and teach
students with specific learning disabilities, hearing
impairments, speech or language impairments, orthopedic
impairments, visual impairments, autism, combined deafness
and
[[Page 22333]]
blindness, traumatic brain injury, and other health
impairments;
Whereas special education teachers--
(1) are dedicated;
(2) possess the ability to understand the needs of a
diverse group of students;
(3) have the capacity to use innovative teaching methods
tailored to a unique group of students; and
(4) understand the differences of the children in their
care;
Whereas special education teachers must have the ability to
interact and coordinate with a child's parents or legal
guardians, social workers, school psychologists, occupational
and physical therapists, and school administrators, as well
as other educators to provide the best quality education for
their students;
Whereas special education teachers help to develop an
individualized education program for every special education
student based on the needs and abilities of the student; and
Whereas special education teachers dedicate themselves to
preparing special education students for success in school
and beyond: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That Congress--
(1) recognizes the amount of work required to be a special
education teacher; and
(2) commends special education teachers for their
sacrifices and dedication to preparing individuals with
special needs for high school graduation, college success,
and rewarding careers.
____________________
MEASURE READ FIRST TIME--S.J. RES. 42
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I understand there is a joint resolution
at the desk. I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the joint
resolution for the first time.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 42) to extend the continuing
resolution until February 18, 2011.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I now ask for its second reading, and in
order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the
provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The joint resolution will
receive its second reading on the next legislative day.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
F_____
TREATY WITH RUSSIA ON MEASURES FOR FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF
STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE WEAPONS--Continued
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, America had an election on November 2.
Let me begin by reminding my colleagues that the American people spoke
loudly and clearly in November and chose a far different team to serve
in Washington. A vastly different leadership will soon take over in the
House of Representatives, and a substantially different group of
Senators was chosen by the American people in the election on November
2.
It seems the leadership of this lameduck Senate is determined, in the
waning days of 2010, to pack quite a bit of legislation that normally
is debated over a considerable amount of time into just a few days--not
only the START treaty that we are on now but also don't ask, don't tell
and supposedly the majority leader has not given up on the DREAM Act,
which would provide amnesty to many illegal immigrants, and also there
is the massive Omnibus appropriations bill with 2,000-plus pages.
So we are here at this time, realizing that if the Congress doesn't
act, the government will run out of money on Saturday. I assume a
short-term CR will be done to address that. But certainly, it would be
much easier if we passed what the minority leader suggested today; that
is, a reasonable short-term resolution, so the government can be funded
and the lights can stay on until mid-February, and the newly elected
Congress--the people's choice--can best decide these great issues that
are facing our country.
I did find it interesting, a few moments ago, to hear the chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee scold the Senate about the number of
filibusters we have supposedly had in this term of Congress. I believe
the statement was made that we have had more filibusters in the last 2
years than we have had in decades or since World War II or words to
that effect. Here is why that statement is only true in a very
technical sense.
It has been the practice of the majority, during the 3 years I have
been in the Senate--and from what I understand much longer before
that--to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate. He immediately fills
the amendment tree; that is, he offers all the amendments that are
allowed under the parliamentary rules of the Senate. That is called
filling the tree. It is so nobody else has an opportunity to file an
amendment. Then, the majority leader files cloture on that bill.
Technically, yes, that is considered a filibuster. But I do not believe
that is what most of the American people consider a filibuster and a
delaying tactic, with excessive speechifying, when they hear the term
``filibuster.''
So let's be clear that there has been an unusual practice--at least
in the last 3 or 4 years--of calling up a bill, filling the tree,
filing for cloture, and then that goes down in history as a filibuster.
With all we have to do and all our leadership has determined we must
consider during these waning days of December 2010, we must divide our
attention between an expensive 2,000-page omnibus bill and the
consideration of a very complicated arms control agreement. It is that
agreement I will discuss.
It is hard to imagine a more important, more serious issue than our
nuclear weapons stockpile. In my view, such a debate deserves our
undivided attention. But we will pivot in a few moments and move to the
omnibus bill.
I wish to take what time I have at this point to begin sharing my
concerns over this treaty and the effect it might have on national
security.
Article II of the Constitution requires that the Senate ratify any
treaty the President signs with a two-thirds vote. I take this
responsibility very seriously, as I am sure all my colleagues do. This
responsibility requires us to review any proposed treaty to ensure it
is in the national interest of the United States of America.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of
the Foreign Relations Committee, I have participated in the review of
this treaty to date. While I appreciate the efforts of my chairman and
my ranking member, I am not convinced that the treaty, in its current
form, is in the national interests of the United States of America.
I might add I am not alone in this view. To hear debate on the floor
from time to time today, one would think all the learned authorities,
all the collective wisdom of the United States of America, present and
past, are in favor of the hasty ratification of this treaty. I simply
point out that there is a wide variety of information and opinion out
there that should be brought to the attention of Members of the Senate
and the American people.
First of all, I point out to my colleagues an op-ed by former
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which appeared in the December 7,
2010, issue of the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``New Start: Ratify,
with Caveats.'' Secretary Rice is generally in favor of the direction
we are headed in the ratification of the START treaty. But she does say
we need two caveats before ratification takes place. First, she states
that smaller forces make the modernization of our nuclear
infrastructure even more urgent. She commends the valiant efforts of
Members of the Senate, including Senator Jon Kyl, to gain more robust
modernization of our nuclear weapons. Secondly, the former Secretary of
State says the Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this
treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold War link
between offensive forces and missile defenses. She says it is troubling
that New START's preamble is unclear in this respect.
I wonder, if we do decide as a Senate to move toward consideration of
this treaty, if we will be allowed to offer amendments to the preamble
to address the concerns of our immediate past Secretary of State.
[[Page 22334]]
Further, I commend to my colleagues a Wall Street Journal op-ed,
dated November 15, 2010, by R. James Woolsey. As my colleagues know,
and many Americans know, Mr. Woolsey has a distinguished record as a
delegate at large to the START and defense-based negotiations, back
during the mid-1980s, as ambassador and chief negotiator for the
Conventional Armed Forces of Europe Treaty from 1989 to 1991, and was
President Clinton's Director of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995.
So this bipartisan, experienced, former government official lists four
concerns that he has with regard to the New START treaty. No. 1, he
wonders about this administration's commitment to modernization. No. 2,
he says it needs to be made clear that the United States, in ratifying
New START, will not be limited at all in its missile defense, and he
does not believe that has been taken care of. No. 3, Director Woolsey,
President Clinton's Director of Central Intelligence, says this treaty
represents a step backward in the verification process between the
United States and Russia. Finally, Mr. Woolsey cites the need for a
binding resolution on Russian submarine-launched cruise missiles. So I
think there is information Members of the Senate need to hear about and
need to consider.
Further, I will mention two opinion pieces. One is by Stephen
Rademaker, an Assistant Secretary of State from 2002 to 2006. It is a
Washington Post op-ed on Friday, August 20, 2010. Secretary Rademaker
authored an opinion piece saying this is no way to approve the New
START treaty. In his opinion piece, Mr. Rademaker said Senate critics
of New START have largely been cut out of the process.
I know this from personal experience as a member of the Foreign
Relations Committee. He goes on to say that all but two Republicans on
the Foreign Relations Committee formally asked the administration to
share with them the negotiating record of the treaty. They were told
no, even though there is precedent for accommodating such requests.
A simple request--had it been accommodated--perhaps could have
allayed some of the concerns we have.
In another op-ed, Mr. Rademaker, on December 10 of this year, said
START will not stop nuclear proliferation. He points out that the claim
that progress in United States-Russian arms control will help stop
countries such as Iran from getting nuclear weapons isn't just an
argument offered in support of New START, it is also one of the key
premises underlying President Obama's embrace of global nuclear
disarmament. There is just one problem. He said the notion that faster
disarmament will lead to greater progress against nuclear proliferation
has never added up.
Then, further, I will quote from a September 8, 2010, Wall Street
Journal piece by John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute and former Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security from 2001 to 2005. Secretary Bolton
observes that the treaty's return to outmoded Cold War limits on
weapons launchers, which will require the United States but not Russia
to dismantle existing delivery systems, is a problem. He goes on to say
this could cripple America's long-range conventional warhead delivery
capabilities, while also severely constraining our nuclear flexibility.
He said: ``We will pay for this mistake in future conflicts entirely
unrelated to Russia.''
I say to my colleagues that the jury is still out on this issue.
These are experienced public servants, experts, and current observers
of the international scene and the nuclear negotiation process. They
have given us words that give me pause. It makes me think there is no
reason to rush into a hasty ratification of this treaty.
With regard to the process, hearings first started in May of this
year. I was one of the Foreign Relations Committee members to request
nine witnesses we believed were important and necessary to cover the
extent of our concerns.
This request was denied. There is no reason such a request would have
been denied. In 12 hearings, there were two witnesses who spoke in
opposition to this treaty. Members of the minority party requested
others, but it nowhere came anywhere near the normal precedent given to
the minority to have at least one witness on each panel. I was
concerned that no former National Lab Directors were invited to
testify.
It is essential that an appropriate amount of time be spent on the
Senate floor considering this treaty. Members who have serious concerns
must be permitted the opportunity to offer amendments that would
address the full range of problems.
I would simply point out, this is the last quote of this speech
today. In endorsing the START treaty, the Washington Post, on November
19, said:
Positive steps had been made and the treaty ought to be
approved.
But it went on to say, the Editorial Board of the Washington Post
went on to say:
But no calamity will befall the United States if the Senate
does not act this year.
I could not agree more with the Washington Post. It will not be a
calamity if we are given adequate time to fully discuss, to fully
examine, to fully debate all of the ramifications about an issue so
profound as our nuclear weapons capability. The worst thing this body
could do is shirk our constitutional responsibility by rushing this
through in the final days of this lameduck session simply to check the
box before the new team, the newly elected team comes to Washington and
takes office in January.
I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article I
referenced be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 7, 2010]
New Start: Ratify, With Caveats
(By Condoleezza Rice)
When U.S. President Bush and Russian President Putin signed
the Moscow Treaty in 2002, they addressed the nuclear threat
by reducing offensive weapons, as their predecessors had. But
the Moscow Treaty was different. It came in the wake of
America's 2001 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty of 1972, and for the first time the United States and
Russia reduced their offensive nuclear weapons with no
agreement in place that constrained missile defenses.
Breaking the link between offensive force reductions and
limits on defense marked a key moment in the establishment of
a new nuclear agenda no longer focused on the Cold War face-
off between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The real threat was
that the world's most dangerous weapons could end up in the
hands of the world's most dangerous regimes--or of terrorists
who would launch attacks more devastating than 9/11. And
since those very rogue states also pursued ballistic
missiles, defenses would (alongside offensive weapons) be
integral to the security of the United States and our allies.
It is in this context that we should consider the potential
contribution of the New Start treaty to U.S. national
security. The treaty is modest, reducing offensive nuclear
weapons to 1,550 on each side--more than enough for
deterrence. While the treaty puts limits on launchers, U.S.
military commanders have testified that we will be able to
maintain a triad of bombers, submarine-based delivery
vehicles and land-based delivery vehicles. Moreover, the
treaty helpfully reinstates on-site verification of Russian
nuclear forces, which lapsed with the expiration of the
original Start treaty last year. Meaningful verification was
a significant achievement of Presidents Reagan and George
H.W. Bush, and its reinstatement is crucial.
Still, there are legitimate concerns about New Start that
must and can be addressed in the ratification process and, if
the treaty is ratified, in future monitoring of the Obama
administration's commitments.
First, smaller forces make the modernization of our nuclear
infrastructure even more urgent. Sen Jon Kyl of Arizona has
led a valiant effort in this regard. Thanks to his efforts,
roughly $84 billion is being allocated to the Department of
Energy's nuclear weapons complex. Ratifying the treaty will
help cement these commitments, and Congress should fully fund
the president's program. Congress should also support the
Defense Department in modernizing our launchers as suggested
in the recent defense strategy study coauthored by former
Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former National Security
Adviser Stephen Hadley.
Second, the Senate must make absolutely clear that in
ratifying this treaty, the U.S. is not re-establishing the
Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses.
New Start's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it
recognizes the ``interrelationship'' of the two.
Administration officials have testified that there is no
link, and that the treaty will not limit U.S. missile
defenses. But Congress should ensure that future Defense
Department budgets reflect this.
[[Page 22335]]
Moscow contends that only current U.S. missile-defense
plans are acceptable under the treaty. But the U.S. must
remain fully free to explore and then deploy the best
defenses--not just those imagined today. That includes
pursuing both potential qualitative breakthroughs and
quantitative increases.
I have personally witnessed Moscow's tendency to interpret
every utterance as a binding commitment. The Russians need to
understand that the U.S. will use the full-range of American
technology and talent to improve our ability to intercept and
destroy the ballistic missiles of hostile countries.
Russia should be reassured by the fact that its nuclear
arsenal is far too sophisticated and large to be degraded by
our missile defenses. In addition, the welcome agreements on
missile-defense cooperation reached in Lisbon recently
between NATO and Russia can improve transparency and allow
Moscow and Washington to work together in this field. After
all, a North Korean or Iranian missile is not a threat only
to the United States, but to international stability broadly.
Ratification of the treaty also should not be sold as a way
to buy Moscow's cooperation on other issues. The men in the
Kremlin know that loose nukes in the hands of terrorists--
some who operate in Russia's unstable south--are dangerous.
That alone should give our governments a reason to work
together beyond New Start and address the threat from
tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller and more
dispersed, and therefore harder to monitor and control.
Russia knows too that a nuclear Iran in the volatile Middle
East or the further development of North Korea's arsenal is
not in its interest. Russia lives in those neighborhoods.
That helps explain Moscow's toughening stance toward Tehran
and its longstanding concern about Pyongyang.
The issue before the Senate is the place of New Start in
America's future security. Nuclear weapons will be with us
for a long time. After this treaty, our focus must be on
stopping dangerous proliferators--not on further reductions
in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals, which are really
no threat to each other or to international stability.
A modern but smaller nuclear arsenal and increasingly
sophisticated defenses are the right bases for U.S. nuclear
security (and that of our allies) going forward. With the
right commitments and understandings, ratification of the New
Start treaty can contribute to this goal. If the Senate
enters those commitments and understandings into a record of
ratification, New Start deserves bipartisan support, whether
in the lame duck session or next year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as we take up the consideration of the
New START, we not only have the opportunity, but also an obligation to
provide consent on the ratification of this treaty. It is long overdue.
We need to regain our ability to provide boots-on-the-ground
verification of the Russian nuclear complex.
Over the past 8 months, we have all had ample opportunity to review
the documents and reports related to the New START. We have conducted
20 hearings, taken over 900 questions. They were questions asked by
Members of the Senate, mainly to the administration, in which those
answers have been provided; 900 questions, over 900 for the record.
In short, we have given significant consideration to the ratification
of New START. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are
committed to guaranteeing the security of our country and also
recognize the obligation to ratify this arms control agreement
immediately.
I want to take you back a little bit because I hear my colleagues
talking about not having enough time. I want to take you back to a hot
day this summer in the Foreign Relations Committee, where--Madam
President, you were at that meeting in which those who are now saying
we do not have enough time, asked for just a little bit more time,
during the impending recess, so we could orderly consider the
ratification process.
That was a hot summer day. It is now a snowy day in December, and
they are still saying the same thing: Just give us more time. We have
had plenty of time.
I compliment Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for the manner in which
they have considered this treaty. This is a very important treaty for
America, and they have made sure that the Senate has had, and each
Senator has had, ample opportunity to get all of the information we
need--all of the information we need from administration individuals or
from experts or from anyone. They have been very open in this process.
They have also given every Member of the Senate ample time to get
every question answered, to get all of the material they need, and it
is now time for us to take on our responsibility; that is, to take up
this treaty for ratification and vote it up or down.
I certainly hope my colleagues will vote to ratify this treaty. I
think it is critically important to our national security. In addition
to its contributions to American security, one of the most compelling
reasons we should ratify this treaty, and do so before we recess, is to
regain our insight into Russia's strategic offensive arms.
Since START I expired over a year ago, we have had no comprehensive
verification regime in place in order to help us understand Russia's
strategic nuclear force. We need the transparency to know what Russia
is doing to provide confidence and stability, and we need that
confidence and stability to contribute to a safer world. We will only
regain that transparency by ratifying this treaty, and we are in
dangerous territory without it.
Let me repeat. We need this treaty for verification. We need this
treaty to know what Russia is doing, so we can verify what Russia tells
us, to make sure, in fact, that it is true. Not only will this treaty
enhance the national security of the United States, it will serve as a
significant step forward in our relationship with Russia, a key partner
in the overall U.S. strategy to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons
worldwide.
Let's be perfectly clear about this. There are still two nations that
have the majority of the nuclear weapon capacity in this world; it is
Russia and the United States. Working together, we can make this world
safer. Working together, we can move forward with reductions in
strategic arms around the world. Working together, we provide the
leadership so we can move forward against proliferation of nuclear
weapons. In fact, we have done that.
But the failure to ratify this treaty could have a major negative
impact on the leadership of the United States in this area. The U.S.
relationship with the Russian Federation is key in our efforts to
curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions. In June, Russia voted for the latest
U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran and later canceled the sale of
an advanced arms defensive missile system.
The ratification of New START is essential in reinitiating
verification inspections and, more importantly, for the United States
and Russia to lead the way in reducing the world's nuclear arms
stockpile. This is for leadership. We all talk about making sure Iran
does not become a nuclear weapons state. Ratifying the New START treaty
will help us in making sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons
state. It keeps the United States and Russia focused on strategic arms
reduction and focused on nonproliferation.
The failure to ratify this treaty is a setback in our ability to
effectively stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. New START,
the first treaty with Russia in almost a decade, calls for both sides
to reduce their deployed warheads modestly from 2,200 to 1,550. The new
treaty would restore verification, inspections, and other exchanges of
information about the American and Russian arsenals. New START could
pay dividends not only by improving nuclear security but by paving the
way to greater cooperation between the two powers in dealing with such
hot spots as Iran and Afghanistan.
Let me just point out one other part, if I might; that is, previous
arms treaties have been ratified with overwhelming bipartisan support.
START I was passed 93 to 6 in 1994. The Moscow Treaty passed 95 to 0 in
2003. Legislators recognized then that arms control agreements between
Russia and the United States are not just good for the security of our
two nations but can lead the way to the world to reduce proliferation
of nuclear weapons.
During last month's NATO Summit in Lisbon, the NATO Secretary General
stated:
The New START treaty would also pave the way for arms
control and disarmament initiatives and other areas that are
vital to Euro-Atlantic security.
[[Page 22336]]
So I think this is a key moment in the history of the Senate. I know
there are many important votes that we take in the Senate. There are
many votes we take that have very significant consequences. The
ratification of this treaty is just one of those moments. It keeps us
on path and enhances our credibility to make the world safer, and does
it in a way that enhances the security of the people of the United
States of America.
This is a treaty that needs to be ratified and needs to be ratified
now. I urge my colleagues to vote in the interests of national
security, to move swiftly, and pass this treaty.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I understand Senator Thune is the next
to speak on the Republican side. I ask unanimous consent to follow him
after he has spoken, and Senator Chambliss would then follow me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for locking in the time.
I want to start by saying here we are, jammed against the Christmas
break with the majority using Christmas as a backstop to rush through
an arms control treaty with the Russians and a trillion-dollar spending
bill on a dual-track basis.
What that means is that we are considering, at the same time, two
documents encompassing thousands of pages with very little ability to
offer meaningful amendments or devote meaningful time to consider the
full impact of these documents that will have a far-reaching and long-
term impact on our Nation.
As I wrote recently in an op-ed that appeared in National Review
Online:
New START misses one opportunity after another to maintain
a stable nuclear relationship between our two countries. To
remedy this will require significant time on the floor of the
Senate. Trying to force it through without ample time for
debate and amendments would amount to a Christmas gift to the
Russians.
I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed I wrote for National Review
Online entitled ``Don't Force New START,'' dated December 9, 2010, be
printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Nation's attention is fixed firmly on
this travesty of an omnibus trillion-dollar appropriations bill which
we should be debating now because the current funding resolution for
the government ends tomorrow. We should not be debating a significant
arms control treaty at this late date and trying to dual-track what I
said earlier are thousands of pages of documents that need appropriate
time on the floor of the Senate.
I want to speak, if I might, briefly today to the substance of the
START agreement and my concerns about that agreement in its current
form. First of all, I want to speak to the issue of missile defense.
The New START treaty not only contains specific limitations on
missile defense in article V but also reestablishes an unwise linkage
in the preamble to the treaty between offense and defense that was
broken when the ABM treaty came to an end.
Moreover, Russia's unilateral statement that the treaty ``can operate
and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from
developing its missile defense capabilities, quantitatively or
qualitatively'' is extremely troubling.
When viewed together, the New START treaty's preamble and Russia's
unilateral statement amount to a Russian attempt to find a leverage
point and exert political pressure upon the United States to forestall
deploying a robust missile defense capability, by threatening to
withdraw from the treaty if we seek to increase our missile defense
capabilities.
The remedy for this concern is for the Senate to strike the offensive
preamble language. That is why I would wholeheartedly support an effort
to strike the preamble as well as an amendment to strike paragraph 3 of
article V of the treaty.
Now, with regard to delivery vehicle modernization, and I want to
speak specifically in that regard to bombers, nearly 2 years ago I
began to have serious concerns about the administration's commitment to
developing a follow-on bomber aircraft and its overall commitment to
the triad of nuclear delivery vehicles. These concerns were aggravated
by the administration's decision to terminate the development program
for a new bomber and reexamine the need, the requirement, and the
technology.
I was also troubled by Secretary Gates's statement on April 6, 2009,
that we will examine all of our strategic requirements in light of
post-START arms control negotiations, which leads me to be concerned
that this administration would allow the Russians to have a say in
whether we would develop a new bomber.
I was gratified to see that the Nuclear Posture Review determined
that the United States should sustain the nuclear triad for decades.
However, as the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
recently stated in a report entitled, ``Sustaining America's Strategic
Advantage in Long-Range Strike,'' the triad is in danger of becoming a
dyad by default because nearly half of the bomber inventory of the
United States, 47 percent, predates the Cuban missile crisis, and the
only aircraft the United States possesses today with reach and
survivability to have a chance of successfully executing missions more
than 1,000 nautical miles into enemy territory from the last air-to-air
refueling are 16 combat-ready B-2 bombers.
Madam President, the B-2 was designed in the 1980s and achieved
initial operational capability over a decade ago, and they will
eventually lose their ability to penetrate advanced air defense
systems. The need, the requirement, and the technology for the next-
generation bomber is well understood. The need for a new long-range
strike capability is urgent because the conflicts of the future will
likely feature heavily defended airspace due in large part to the
proliferation of relatively inexpensive but extremely sophisticated and
deadly air defense systems. We have heard testimony before the Armed
Services Committee from intelligence officials that Russia is the
developer of most of these advanced air defense systems and is
exporting those systems both to China and to other countries in the
world.
Various past and present combatant commanders of the Pacific Command,
Strategic Command, and Joint Forces Command have each testified in
support of the capability the next-generation bomber will provide.
As Senator McCain summarized in his letter to the Foreign Relations
Committee on the treaty, the 1251 plan and even the updated plan lack
critical details about decisions related to the follow-on ICBM, the
next-generation bomber, or a follow-on air-launched cruise missile.
General Chilton, the most recent STRATCOM commander, has spoken about
how conversations about these matters need to start now.
Development of replacement delivery vehicles for all three legs of
the triad need to begin during the life of New START. Decisions need to
be made and development needs to begin within the next 10 years or
replacement systems will not be available when current systems reach
the end of their service lives. There is no assurance that the next
long-range bomber will be nuclear capable. Therefore, I plan to offer
an amendment which will require the administration to certify that the
President has made a commitment to develop a replacement heavy bomber
that is both nuclear and conventionally capable.
With regard to delivery vehicle numbers, on July 9, 2009, at an Armed
Services Committee hearing, I asked GEN James Cartwright, the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about the administration's commitment at
that time to reduce our strategic delivery vehicles to somewhere in the
range of 500 to 1,100 systems and to specify at what point in this
range would he become
[[Page 22337]]
concerned that delivery vehicle reductions would necessitate making our
nuclear triad into a dyad. General Cartwright responded, ``I would be
very concerned if we got down below those levels about midpoint,''
meaning he would be concerned if the negotiated number fell below 800
delivery vehicles. This treaty caps delivery vehicles at 700--
substantially below the number General Cartwright stated a year and a
half ago.
The administration makes this odd distinction between deployed and
nondeployed delivery vehicles and points out that the total cap for the
treaty is 800 deployed and nondeployed systems. Of course, there is a
letter from General Cartwright in the Record stating he is comfortable
with the distinction between deployed and nondeployed delivery vehicles
and the overall limits to delivery vehicles. But the real number we are
working with here is 700.
I think it is worth noting that former Defense Secretary Schlesinger
testified to the Foreign Relations Committee on April 29, 2010, that,
``as to the stated context of strategic nuclear weapons, the numbers
specified are adequate, though barely so.''
With regard to this limit of 700 deployed delivery vehicles, I find
it very troubling that the administration has yet to articulate how it
will deploy a nuclear force conforming to the number of 700. The
administration has informed the Senate how it might field a force of
720 delivery vehicles, which Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen
acknowledged in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
June 17, 2010, would still require further reductions to meet the
treaty's central limits.
They went on to argue that because the United States will have 7
years to reduce its forces to these limits, they did not find it
necessary to identify a final force structure at this point, meaning
the Senate will commit the United States to a delivery vehicle force of
700 without knowing how that force will be composed. This problem is
compounded by the fact that the treaty was so poorly negotiated, that
for every ICBM or SLBM deployed with a conventional warhead, one less
nuclear vehicle will be available to the United States.
The treaty essentially requires the United States to make unilateral
reductions in delivery vehicles, as Russia is already well below the
delivery vehicle limits and would drastically reduce its arsenal with
or without this treaty. As the Congressional Research Service writes:
Russia currently has only 620 launchers, and this number
may decline to around 400 deployed and 444 total launchers.
This would likely be true whether or not the treaty enters
into force because Russia is eliminating older missiles as
they age and deploying newer missiles at a far slower pace
than that needed to retain 700 deployed launchers.
Therefore, in light of all these facts, I will seek to offer an
amendment or two regarding the delivery vehicle numbers in this treaty.
I am also working on several other amendments that I may seek to offer
regarding prompt global strike and other issues.
Ultimately, this is a very significant treaty that deserves full and
fair consideration, and we should not be jamming the consideration of
this treaty up against the Christmas break. As I have indicated, there
are substantial issues here that need to be fully vetted, and we
obviously do not have the time to consider these issues this year. We
should wait until next year to fully consider this treaty and have a
full, free, and wide-open debate on this matter, with no restrictions
on amendments.
Exhibit 1
[From the National Review, Dec. 9, 2010]
Don't Force New Start
The treaty should not be a Christmas present for Russia
Twenty-four years ago, Pres. Ronald Reagan traveled to
Reykjavik, Iceland, to negotiate an arms control treaty with
the Soviet Union. When the Soviets insisted that the treaty
must limit America's missile defense program, which was
designed to guard against intercontinental ballistic
missiles, Reagan walked away. He later explained, ``We prefer
no agreement than to bring home a bad agreement to the United
States.''
Apparently times have changed. President Obama wants to jam
a deeply flawed arms-control treaty with Russia, known as New
START, through a lame-duck session of the Senate just to rack
up an accomplishment before the end of the year.
New START misses one opportunity after another to maintain
a stable nuclear relationship between our two countries. To
remedy this will require significant time on the floor of the
Senate. Trying to force it through without ample time for
debate and amendments would amount to a Christmas gift to the
Russians.
First and foremost, missile defense remains a major point
of disagreement between the United States and Russia, and
this treaty only makes the situation worse. Russia has
threatened to withdraw from the treaty if we expand our
missile-defense capabilities. It made a similar threat when
the original START was completed under the first President
Bush. At that time, President Bush said directly that our
missile-defense activities have no bearing on Russia's arms-
control obligations. I am concerned that President Obama's
response to the Russian threat this time is weaker.
Moreover, the treaty contains a direct limitation on U.S.
missile-defense-system deployments. Why does a treaty
ostensibly about offensive weapons mention missile defense at
all? It appears to have been included only to appease Russia.
Treaty proponents argue that New START furthers the legacy
of Ronald Reagan's vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
Let's be clear about one thing: President Reagan never would
have sacrificed missile defense on the altar of arms control.
Second, Russia has an estimated ten-to-one advantage over
the United States in tactical nuclear weapons, a situation
that was not addressed at all by New START. These are the
kinds of weapons that are most susceptible to theft or
diversion to emerging threats, including terrorists and rogue
nations such as North Korea and Iran. They are the weapons
Russia has reportedly moved closer to our NATO allies. One of
our top goals going into negotiations on this treaty should
have been to close that gap, so why wasn't it mentioned?
Because the Russians didn't want to talk about it.
Third, treaty proponents argue that the Senate must rush
consideration of New START because we now lack the ability to
verify what Russia is doing. This would make sense if the
verification provisions in the treaty were something to be
celebrated and worth rushing into place.
However, New START's verification provisions are much
weaker than what we had under the previous treaty. This is a
serious concern, because experts say Russia has essentially
cheated in one way or another on pretty much every major
arms-control treaty to which it is a party.
What's more, as the expiration date of the previous START
approached last year, the administration promised it would
come up with some sort of ``bridging agreement'' to keep
verification efforts going until the new treaty could be
ratified. The parties never finished that agreement, and so
any verification gap has been created by the administration.
The Senate has a responsibility to consider treaties
thoroughly to ensure they are in our country's best interest.
It should not rush its duty now to make up for the Obama
administration's mistakes. We lose nothing by postponing
consideration of this treaty until the new Congress convenes
in a few weeks.
This flawed treaty has too great an impact on America's
national security to be taken lightly or rushed for the sake
of political pride.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before the Senate at this moment is the
New START treaty, an agreement between the United States and Russia.
This is an effort to try to make this a safer world, to make certain
that the nuclear weapons that are in this world are carefully
monitored, that they are watched and inspected, and that we reduce any
urge to expand nuclear weaponry. It is an attempt to make this is a
safer world.
The President worked long and hard on this. He brought it for
consideration months ago, almost 7 months ago, and we have had
hundreds--at least 200 hearings. I am sorry, let me restate that. We
have had many Senate hearings--I don't have the exact number before me,
but I will get it--on this matter. We have had many efforts at every
level to bring experts from across America and from around the world to
support our effort and bring this matter before us.
What troubles me, Madam President, is the same thing we discussed
earlier at a press conference. We brought this matter to the floor of
the Senate over 24 hours ago. Yet speaker after speaker on the
Republican side has used this time on the floor of the Senate to come
and complain that they do not have
[[Page 22338]]
any time to speak on the floor of the Senate. They can't have it both
ways. They can't come and give a speech about the treaty, yet say the
reason we shouldn't take it up is they don't have an opportunity to
speak on the treaty. They do have an opportunity to speak on the
treaty, and they have had it for more than 24 hours.
I asked Senator Kerry, as he left the floor: I know the Republicans
want to offer amendments to this treaty. How many amendments have been
filed?
He said: I will check, but I think only one amendment has been filed.
His staff has said that is the current situation--one amendment by
Senator McCain. Here we are, 26 hours into this debate, and one
amendment has been filed and no amendments have been called. Yet
speaker after speaker comes from the Republican side of the aisle and
says: The problem with this treaty is we don't have time to speak--as
they speak--and we don't have time to offer amendments--as they fail to
offer amendments.
So one has to step back and say that maybe the problem is not a
problem of time; maybe the problem is they just don't want to see this
treaty passed.
Thank goodness for Senator Lugar of Indiana, who has spoken up in
favor of this treaty. I said earlier at the press conference and would
say again with him on the floor that there aren't a handful of people
in America who are as expert as he is on this issue of nuclear arms and
the safety of those that currently exist. There was a time when people
across America thought his name was Senator Nunn-Lugar because they
kept hearing Nunn-Lugar, Nunn-Lugar. It was a time when Senator Sam
Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, and Senator Lugar, a Republican from
Indiana, really led this Nation and this world in taking an honest look
at nuclear weapons to see how we can make sure they are safe and don't
threaten our future. Senator Lugar knows--because he said as much
publicly--that this treaty moves us in the direction of a safer world.
During the height of the Cold War, there were enough nuclear weapons
on our planet to destroy all life many times over. Thank goodness the
Soviet Union is gone and we are in a new era, a more peaceful era.
Still, 20 years later, both Russia and the United States have thousands
of nuclear weapons in their arsenals--far more than either side needs
for maintaining security.
In an era of terrorist threats, we are faced with new challenges,
including a nuclear-armed Pakistan with al-Qaida operating within its
borders and countries such as Iran and North Korea pursuing their own
nuclear programs.
This week, we have a chance to make a difference--to reduce the
number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons in a way that not only makes
us safer but also strengthens America's authority in persuading other
nations around the world to halt their destabilizing practices.
Senator Lugar said:
START would strengthen our nonproliferation diplomacy
worldwide, limit potential arms competition, and help us
focus our defense resources effectively.
What a succinct description of a critically important measure before
us. Yet day after day--2 days now--hour after hour, Senate Republicans
come to the floor and say we just don't have time to do this.
Efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons have always been
bipartisan in the past, and they should be bipartisan today. As they
say, partisanship should end at the water's edge whether the President
is a Democrat or a Republican. If it is good for America, if it makes
us safer; if it moves us forward in the goal of a more peaceful world,
we should stand together with both parties working on it.
Unfortunately, the opposition we have heard over and over on the floor
has been from the other side.
I thank Senator John Kerry. I tell you, this man is a dogged and
determined legislator, and he has been working this issue harder than I
have ever seen him work anything in my life, for the last several
weeks, to get to this moment where we bring it up on the floor. He
understands that last December when the START I treaty expired, it left
the United States without key inspectors in Russia and reduced
important security transparency.
I would say to Senator Kerry, the modern patron saint of the
Republican Party is Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan, in a few words,
summarized his view when it came to negotiating: Trust, but verify. For
376 days, we have been unable to verify what is going on in Russia with
their nuclear weapons. We don't know if they are being held safely--
treaty compliant. We just don't know. How can we be safer as a nation
in blissful ignorance of what is happening?
This New START treaty President Obama brings to us will put
inspectors on the ground in Russia and in the United States to make
certain both sides live up to the treaty obligations. That is
essential. It is something Russian President Medvedev called a ``truly
historic event.'' President Obama said at the signing that this is ``an
important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for
U.S.-Russia relations.'' I couldn't agree with them more.
Here is the number I was searching for earlier. The Senate has
conducted 21 hearings and briefings on the New START treaty--a
significant number of opportunities to debate and assess the treaty.
In September, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
overwhelmingly approved the treaty on a bipartisan basis. The people
supporting this treaty across the board, Democrats and Republicans,
represent the best minds in America in recent history on the subject.
They include current administration officials, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, as well as Madeleine
Albright, former Senator Chuck Hagel, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Colin
Powell, James Schlesinger, George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, and John
Warner. At least seven generals and admirals who commanded our nuclear
forces feel the same way.
This does not restrict the United States when it comes to missile
defense. It is very clear it does not. It is one of the things that has
been said, but the people who say it ignore the obvious. It was several
weeks ago when we had a NATO meeting on missile defense moving forward
to make our Nation safer, and the Russians were engaged in that dialog.
It was a historic breakthrough. They ignored that when they raised that
issue.
As Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has said, the new treaty will
impose ``no limits on us'' when it comes to missile defense.
There is a concern, as well, expressed that the treaty does nothing
to address the issue of tactical nuclear weapons, where the Russians
apparently outnumber us. I agree it is a serious issue that needs to be
addressed, especially from a nonproliferation viewpoint, since many of
these weapons are deployed in undisclosed locations. However, this
treaty, like the Moscow Treaty and the original START agreement,
deliberately and rightly focuses on strategic nuclear weapons.
Bipartisanship on issues of national security has been the hallmark
of our Nation. Even in the toughest of times and in the most desperate
political circumstances we have come together.
For example, in 1992, just after the Cold War came to an end, the
Senate ratified the first strategic arms reduction treaty by an
overwhelming vote of 93 to 6. Of my Republican Senators who are still
here today who were in attendance for the vote--Senators Bond, Cochran,
Grassley, Hatch, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, and Shelby--all voted in
support.
In 1996, the Senate voted 87 to 4 in support of START II, including
the votes of Republican Senators Bennett, Bond, Cochran, Grassley,
Gregg, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, and Snowe.
In 2002, the Senate voted 95 to 0--that is right, 95 to 0--in support
of the Moscow Treaty, and 26 of the 27 Republicans there at the time
are still here today and they voted in support of that treaty.
At the peak of the Cold War, the stockpile of nuclear weapons held by
[[Page 22339]]
all nuclear weapons states was some 70,000 warheads, 1.6 million times
the power of the bomb at Hiroshima. We have reduced the number of those
weapons by more than two-thirds. Yet today the combined nuclear weapon
capability is still equal to 150,000 of the nuclear bombs used in World
War II.
Today we have an opportunity to further reduce this threat in a
responsible bipartisan way. I do not know when this session will end
tonight, but I will say to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle: You have ample opportunity to debate. You have ample opportunity
to offer amendments.
Time is not a good excuse. We have been in session now, this day and
yesterday--we started at about 3:30. Only one amendment has been filed
on the Republican side. If they truly want to engage us in an important
debate about this treaty issue, do it now. Don't put it off. We have to
reach the point where we can verify what is being done in Russia to
make this a safer nation and to move us toward a more peaceful world.
____________________
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate
proceed en bloc to Executive Calendar Nos. 885, 886, 917, and 935; that
the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements relating
to the nominations be printed in the Record, and the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
The judiciary
Catherine C. Eagles, of North Carolina, to be United States
District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina,
vice Norwood Carlton Tilley, Jr., retired.
Kimberly J. Mueller, of California, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of California, vice
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., retired.
John A. Gibney, Jr., of Virginia, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, vice
Robert E. Payne, retired.
James Kelleher Bredar, of Maryland, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Maryland, vice J.
Frederick Motz, retiring.
____________________
TREATY WITH RUSSIA ON MEASURES FOR FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF
STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
The Omnibus
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes
about the START treaty. Before I do, there is another issue that has
been debated on this floor that we are going to continue debating over
the next several days, and that is the issue of the funding of the
Federal Government. There is an omnibus bill that has been laid out
there now, which is something that happens from time to time that is
simply not the way business ought to be done in this body.
As we move into the debate on the omnibus bill, there are a lot of us
who want to see, obviously, the government remaining open and running
at full speed. All of us within this body want to make sure as we do
that, we do it the right way.
Frankly, to run in an omnibus bill at the last minute out here that
has thousands of earmarks--some of which folks like me requested months
and months ago, and until 2 or 3 days ago had no idea those requests
would be honored and are now included in there, amounting to billions
of dollars. With the issues we have now, including the election that
took place on November 2 where the American people spoke loudly and
clearly about the way Washington spends money, this is not the way to
do business.
I intend to vote against the omnibus bill. I will speak more about
that at a later date.
The New START Treaty
I want to speak for a minute on the START treaty, and I want to start
off by commending both Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar who, as the
chairman and ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, have
worked long and hard on this particular measure.
This treaty was signed by the President after negotiations were
completed back in the spring. By the time we got the text, and then the
additions to the text, I would say it was probably into April or May,
whenever it was.
Since that time, I know both Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar have
worked very hard. They have been open for discussion. I have had
several discussions with Senator Lugar about it and have explained my
problems with it early on to him. He has been very receptive. I
received another letter from him today further explaining some of the
issues that are out there.
But that is an indication of how complex this issue is. As a member
of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, I have
had the opportunity to have any number of briefings. I have been in
hearing after hearing. I have been in meeting after meeting with
members of the administration as well as outside experts who believe
this is right, and those who believe it is wrong. I have been involved
in phone calls. I have traveled abroad to visit with our friends in
both France and Great Britain to learn about what they are doing with
respect to their nuclear inventory.
It is not like folks like me who have to make a decision whether to
support this have not been working on it and trying to understand the
complexities of this treaty. Gosh, those Members of the Senate who do
not serve on Foreign Relations, Armed Services, or Intelligence do not
have the benefit of the extensive briefings those who serve on those
committees have had, and they have been trying to understand the
operatives that are involved in this treaty also.
My concerns were laid out to Senator Lugar early on in a letter. I
have been very clear in conversations and hearings, including in an
extensive conversation that I had with my longtime good friend, Senator
Sam Nunn, who, along with Senator Lugar, in my mind are the two
godfathers of the Russia-United States nuclear issue.
The issues that are out there are in the process of being dealt with
and resolved--but we are not there, in my mind. I cannot speak for the
other 59 folks here, but I can tell you this: There are five major
issues I have been concerned with from day one.
First is missile defense and what impact this treaty is going to have
on missile defense. I will be honest, I expressed concern about it,
including in a hearing in the Armed Services Committee with Secretary
Gates, who is an individual for whom I have such great admiration and
respect--we can have a difference of opinion on policy from time to
time, but I know where Secretary Gates stands when it comes to the
national security interests of the United States.
In response to a question I asked him in an Armed Services hearing,
he satisfied me with respect to the missile defense issue. Then, like
happens with so many other issues when there is a complex treaty like
this, we have comments that were made in Portugal in recent weeks about
phase 4 of our missile defense plan that all of a sudden raises another
issue, or at least a potential issue, that has to be addressed and has
to be resolved, in my mind, before I can vote for a treaty I want to
support. I continue to work through that particular issue.
The second issue is the issue of modernization of the weapons in the
United States. We can look ourselves in the eye, Members of this body
and Members of the House, and take part of the blame. We have not
funded a modernization program for the updating of nuclear weapons of
the United States. Now we have called on the administration to make a
commitment, and that commitment is going to have to be a financial
commitment as well as a policy commitment. To the credit of the
administration, they have worked in a very diligent way--I know with
the prodding of Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar--to address this issue
both from a budgetary standpoint as well as a policy standpoint. Again,
it is not just this administration that has to be
[[Page 22340]]
involved. It is future administrations as well as future Congresses
that are going to have to address that issue.
As we decide whether to vote for or against this treaty, we have to
satisfy ourselves that future Congresses, future administrations are
going to do that. How do we resolve that? I do not yet know. But it is
another issue that we have to go through in our minds and satisfy
ourselves on the issue of modernization before we can vote for it.
Third is an issue of verification. This is probably the major issue,
at least in my mind. The Senator from Illinois just spoke about the
fact that we have gone for a year or so now without having the
opportunity, under the treaty that expired in 2009, to look at what the
Russians are doing and likewise to give the Russians the opportunity to
look at what we are doing.
It is important when there is a complex issue like this, and an issue
where you have to trust the other side to do certain things, that you
have the opportunity to verify after you enter into that trusting
relationship with them.
The verification process that is set forth in this New START treaty
is frankly significantly different from the verification process that
was in the treaty that just expired. There are reasons it needed to be
different, and I understand that. But there still is an issue relative
to: Do we have the right kind of verification measures in place in this
treaty to be able to satisfy our community, both the defense community
and the intelligence community, that this treaty gives us everything we
need to have to be sure that the Russians are doing what they are
supposed to do?
In that vein, one way we are going about the issue of making sure the
verification requirements that are set forth in here are adequate is to
look at the National Intelligence Estimate that was put out 2 months
ago, 6 weeks ago--whenever it was. When it did come out, I sat down and
read through it. It is a rather detailed document that sets forth each
of the issues in the minds of the intelligence community. And those
concerns are dealt with in an appropriate way. There are still some
questions in my mind with the classified portion of this treaty that I
have to be satisfied with.
I started going through the NIE again, and over the weekend, when it
looks like we are going to have plenty of hours to sit down with not
much going on, I am going to do that. Hopefully, I am going to satisfy
myself on the classified portions.
Last, what is not in this treaty is just as much of concern to me as
what is in the treaty; that is, a total lack of addressing the issue of
tactical weapons. I understand, because I have asked the question to
the State Department, to the intelligence community, the Defense
Department--about this issue of tactical weapons. Their rationale is,
look, we cannot deal with tactical weapons until we get this treaty
agreed to and signed and deal with the strategic side. Then we can deal
with the tactical side.
I don't buy that. I think there was an opportunity that was missed.
We are dealing with a country that has fewer strategic weapons than we
have. They are going to be huge beneficiaries under this bill from the
standpoint of the sheer numbers. On the other hand, they have hundreds
and hundreds, perhaps even thousands--we really don't know--more
tactical weapons than what we have. It is the tactical weapons that
bother me just as much as the strategic weapons because the tactical
weapon can be put in a suitcase and delivered to a location that could
destroy something domestically, or U.S. assets somewhere else around
the world, or people.
The lack of addressing the tactical weapons issue is a problem. Is it
enough to say we should not do this? Maybe not. But there are those of
us who are wrestling with the issue and trying to do it in the right
way. I will have to say that in concluding my eighth year here, I have
never had to vote in favor of a treaty that was this complex, this
important, and had this much influence on what is going to happen with
respect to the safety and security of our country for my children and
grandchildren.
I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar and their staffs for a
tremendous amount of work and their openness. We have never asked a
question they have not attempted to respond to. I am hopeful, over the
next couple days, a week, however long we are going to be here, if we
conclude it or if we conclude it next year, that we will be able to
ultimately come together as a body and address this issue in a right
and positive way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues who
believe that now is the time to ratify the New START treaty. The New
START treaty is a continuation of a long history of bipartisan arms
control cooperation and it is the culmination of President Ronald
Reagan's consistent appeal, as mentioned in previous remarks, to trust,
but verify when we are dealing with Russia. At a time when much of
America is fed up with this body's inability to work in a bipartisan
fashion, I hope we can still work across the aisle to strengthen
America's national security and deal with the threat that is posed by
nuclear weapons. I certainly applaud the leadership of Senator Kerry
and Senator Lugar and the work they have done on this issue heading the
Foreign Relations Committee.
Much like previous arms control treaties, including the old START
treaty signed by President George H.W. Bush and the SORT treaty signed
by President George W. Bush, the New START treaty is squarely in the
national security interests of the United States. The New START treaty
will reduce the limit of strategic nuclear arms aimed at the United
States. The United States and Russia will be bound to a lower number of
nuclear weapons, which will be 30 percent fewer than the current limits
under the SORT treaty. The treaty's new rules allow us to count
Russia's nuclear weapons more accurately. That is a critical piece as
we listened to the concerns of Senator Chambliss about whether we can
verify what is going on. These new counting rules give us the ability
to more accurately figure out what is happening with Russia's nuclear
arsenal.
In addition, New START leaves us the flexibility to determine our own
force structure and maintain a robust deterrent capable of protecting
us and our allies.
Despite all the concerns raised, this treaty does nothing--let me
repeat that, this treaty does nothing--to constrain our missile defense
plans. Further, it allows for the modernization of our nuclear weapons
complex. We have already heard from the three directors of our nuclear
labs that they are happy with the commitment this administration has
provided to modernization of our nuclear arsenal. The treaty restores a
critical verification regime that was lost when the old START treaty
expired. We have gone over a year without important intelligence from
these on-the-ground inspections. This gap hinders our insight into
Russia's program.
Much like previous agreements, this treaty deserves broad bipartisan
backing in the Senate. Past treaties have benefited from overwhelming
support in this body. The original START treaty was ratified by a vote
of 93 to 6. We can see that on this chart. START II was ratified 87 to
4. The SORT treaty, negotiated by George W. Bush, was ratified by a
vote of 95 to 0. That is incredible--no opposition to that treaty. New
START has earned the backing of an overwhelming number of foreign
policy experts and national security officials across a broad political
spectrum, both Republican and Democratic. New START has the unanimous
backing of our Nation's military and its leadership, including
Secretary Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the commander of
America's Strategic Command, and the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency. America's military establishment is joined by the support of
every living Secretary of State from Secretary Jim Baker to Secretary
Condoleezza Rice, as well as five former Secretaries of Defense, nine
former National Security
[[Page 22341]]
Advisers, and former Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. I know
people cannot read this because the writing is so small, but this is
the column of former Presidents and Cabinet-rank officials who support
New START. Look how long the list is. This is the list of those
Cabinet-rank officials who oppose it.
America's intelligence community also strongly supports the New START
treaty. It has now been 376 days since we last had inspection teams on
the ground in Russia monitoring its nuclear program. Every day we go
without this critical intelligence is another day that erodes our
understanding of Russia's intentions, plans, and capabilities. New
START gives us on-the-ground intelligence we currently do not have and
also, for the first time, includes a new unique identifier system which
allows us to better track Russia's missiles and delivery systems.
I heard the Senator from Georgia expressing a question about whether
this gives us the ability we need to verify what Russia is doing. New
START gives us more inspections per facility per year than the old
START treaty did. Without this critical information, our intelligence
community is hindered from an accurate assessment and our military is
forced to engage in costly worst-case-scenario planning.
Our NATO allies also support New START. As chair of the subcommittee
responsible for NATO, I am mindful of the defense and security of our
NATO alliance members living in Eastern Europe. I was pleased that at
the recent NATO Lisbon summit, all 28 NATO allies gave their strong
unanimous support for ratification of the New START treaty. In fact,
some of the treaty's strongest backers are those countries that are our
allies along Russia's borders. The NATO Secretary General said: ``A
delay in the ratification of the START treaty would be damaging to
security in Europe.''
Finally, ratification of this treaty should be important to those who
are concerned with the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea or
who are worried about the threat that is posed by terrorists around the
world who are seeking a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials.
I know some critics look at the New START treaty in isolation and say
this arms agreement has nothing to do with these proliferation threats.
I couldn't disagree more. What does it say to our allies and partners
around the globe if we turn our back on a long history of bipartisan
support for working with Russia to reduce the nuclear threat? Delaying
ratification of a treaty with so much bipartisan support from our
military and the national security and foreign policy establishments, a
treaty that is so obviously in our national interest, tells the world
we are not serious about the nuclear threat. It says we are not serious
about our responsibilities under the nonproliferation treaty. I know my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree we should do everything in
our power to make sure Iran and North Korea and al-Qaida do not have
nuclear weapons. If we abdicate our position as a leader on nuclear
arms control, we risk losing the authority to build international
consensus and stopping rogue nations and ending nuclear proliferation
around the globe.
Earlier this year, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser
under President George H.W. Bush, testified to the Foreign Relations
Committee that ``the principal result of non-ratification would be to
throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos.''
It is much too dangerous to gamble with nuclear weapons or our national
security at a time when we are working with our international partners
to press Iran and North Korea on their nuclear weapons programs.
In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, former Defense
Secretary James Schlesinger said that a failure to ratify this treaty
would ``have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others
with regard to, particularly, the nonproliferation issue.''
That sentiment was echoed by five former Republican Secretaries of
State in an op-ed written for the Washington Post a couple weeks ago.
One of the arguments we have heard this afternoon is that we are
rushing consideration of this treaty. This is not true.
This chart is an outline that shows how much time has been spent in
the past as treaties have come to the floor. The fact is, the Senate
has thoroughly considered the New START agreement. We have had plenty
of time to review the treaty. Since it was signed in April, the treaty
text has been available for everyone to read. It has not changed. We
have had over 250 days to examine the treaty and ask questions of the
administration. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held 12 hearings
on the treaty.
There were another nine held by other committees. In contrast, there
were only four committee hearings held on the SORT treaty and only
eight held on START II. The Foreign Relations Committee also
accommodated some Members' concerns earlier this year by delaying a
vote on the treaty during the August recess. The Obama administration
has answered over 900 questions for the record on New START. Nearly
every major foreign policy or national security expert has weighed in
on the treaty, either in testimony, briefings or in the press.
The history of treaties such as New START shows that the concern that
there isn't enough time on the floor to consider this treaty is not
accurate. In general, arms control agreements take an average of 2 to 5
days of floor time. The original START treaty, which was much more
complicated and complex and the first of its kind, took only 5 days of
floor debate. START II took 2 days of floor consideration. The most
recent SORT treaty took 2 days of floor debate. We have already had
almost 2 days of floor debate. Other arms control agreements, such as
the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Chemical
Weapons Convention, took 2 days of floor time. We have had more than
enough time to consider this treaty on the floor.
Finally, some have expressed concerns that the Senate should not be
forced to work so close to their holiday vacations. I think it is
important to repeat what retired BG John Adams said in response to that
concern. He said:
We have 150,000 U.S. warriors doing their job over
Christmas and the New Year. The U.S. Senate should do its
job--and ratify this treaty.
I could not agree more with Brigadier General Adams. The Senate
should get its work done. We should ratify New START. We should do it
before the holidays, before we go home, in this session of Congress. It
is time to vote on this critical national security concern.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order to
return to legislative session be delayed and occur at 7 p.m., with the
order then for recognition of the majority leader still in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. It is a delight to see you in the
chair.
Mr. President, let me make a brief comment on the last comment from
my colleague about the work schedule of the Senate because I have been
one of those folks who have decried the fact that we are dual-tracking
the START treaty and the Omnibus appropriations bill here with just a
week left before Christmas.
I do think it is an imposition on our families and our staff that we
need to be working during this period of time. I do not think there is
anybody in this body who works any harder than I do. I do not claim to
be the hardest working, but I am no stranger to hard work, and I am
happy to be here right up to Christmas Eve if that is what it takes.
But my complaint is that this is a problem that has been brought on
by the Democratic leadership. All year long, we had the opportunity to
do a budget. Did we ever do a budget? No. All year long, we had the
opportunity to pass appropriations bills. This is the first time in my
memory that the Senate never passed a single appropriations bill--not
one.
[[Page 22342]]
So now here we are, with a week to go before Christmas, trying to
cram everything into the same short period of time. We have to pass a
bill to fund the operations of government which will cease on Saturday
at midnight. We could have done that in the last 300 days of this year,
but, no, we wait until the very last minute. We wait until the last
minute to do the tax legislation that just passed out of the Senate and
the House is considering this afternoon. In addition to that, we are
trying to consider the START treaty. That is the concern a lot of us
have.
But let me return to where I was earlier today when I was talking
about some of my concerns about the treaty, laying the predicate for
some of the amendments we will have as soon as we are done with our
comments, our opening statements about the treaty itself.
I had last talked about the modernization program, and Senator Kerry
and I had a brief conversation about that, agreeing that this was a
very important part of the ability of the United States to have a
credible nuclear deterrent. We were talking about the nuclear weapons
part of that.
There is a second part of our nuclear deterrent, and that is the
delivery vehicles--the missiles, the submarines, the long-range
bombers, the cruise missiles--those components of our so-called nuclear
triad that enable us to effectively deliver the warheads in the event
that should ever be required.
The problem with this part of the modernization package is that we do
not have the degree of certainty that I think we need to have the
assurance that moving forward with an even lower number of warheads is
a safe thing to do. Specifically, we have asked the administration for
but have not received assurances with respect to the long-range bomber,
the ICBM, and the Minuteman III. Let me just mention those two things.
With regard to the long-range bomber, we have repeatedly asked: Will
we have a nuclear capable long-range bomber? That is what the bomber
leg of the triad is--a nuclear-capable bomber. Now, it could be a
penetrating bomber, it could be a manned bomber, it could be a bomber
that carries cruise missiles to get to the target, but it needs to be
nuclear capable. We have no assurance. So while everybody in the
administration continues to say: ``We believe in our nuclear triad, we
must have a nuclear triad,'' we are not getting any satisfaction on the
question, What about the bomber leg of the triad?
Our current long-range bomber cruise missiles are due to be retired
in 2025. Will there be a follow-on? Again, no reassurance. No funding
has been provided in the 1251 plan that I spoke of earlier for
replacement of an ICBM Minuteman III.
There is some very troubling language in the 1251 update on a follow-
on assessment study. I am going to quote what this assessment study
will be predicated on. This is for the ICBM. It is a study that--and I
am quoting--``will consider a range of deployment options, with the
objective of defining a cost-effective approach for an ICBM follow-on
that supports continued reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons while
promoting stable deterrence.''
That supports continued reductions in the U.S. nuclear weapons. So
the key criteria here is not to carry whatever weapons we think are
necessary but, rather, an ICBM force that will be determined and sized
in order to achieve those reductions. What I am wondering is whether
that suggests that the administration might not maintain an ICBM
capability so that it can pursue further reductions or that the ICBM
follow-on system will be based on plans for reductions.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator--
Mr. KYL. Let me just complete this thought, if I could.
The administration's arms control agenda--my belief--should not be
the key factor in determining the level of our ICBM capability.
I will make a note here and allow my colleague to interrupt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I just
thought it would be helpful if we can talk about a few of these things
as we go along.
What I want to ask the Senator is what he thinks is inadequate in the
resolution of ratification. Declaration 13 makes it clear that the
United States is committed to accomplishing the modernization and
replacement of the strategic delivery vehicles.
The service lives of the existing strategic delivery vehicles run
well past the 10-year life of this treaty. So my question would be,
since the DOD has already scheduled study and decision deadlines,
timelines, for the replacement of all of these systems--so since that
is outside of the four corners of the treaty, so to speak, why would
declaration 13 not state that we are committed to proceeding to the
full modernization and replacement of the adequate delivery vehicles?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to that.
Let me respond first by quoting two key officials from the Obama
administration: Secretary Gates and Under Secretary of Defense Jim
Miller. This is what I gather their decision is going to be based on.
First, Secretary Gates:
There are placeholders for each of the modernization
programs because no decision has been made. They are
basically to be decided, and along the lines that Admiral
Mullen is just describing, those are decisions we are going
to have to make over the next few years in terms of we are
going to have to modernize these systems and we are going to
have to figure out what we can afford.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Jim Miller:
We think the current ICBMs are extremely stable and
stabilizing, particularly as we de-MIRV to one warhead each.
I would interject, remember, we are doing that while the Russians are
MIRVing, which, of course, creates more instability under this treaty.
But to go on with the quotation:
But we will look at concepts that would make them even more
survivable over time, which would allow them to be part of a
reserve force.
My point in reading these two quotations is to suggest to my
colleague that it is troubling that the administration is not willing
to commit to making a decision, is not willing to commit to having a
nuclear-capable bomber force, is not willing to say that the ICBM force
will support the delivery of the warheads required for that leg of the
triad but, rather, will be based on what we can afford and be based on
our desire to continue to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons, and that perhaps
we are developing them in order to be part of a reserve force.
All of this suggests that the one quotation that was read by my
colleague is a nice statement but does not reflect the reality of what
the administration is actually planning on.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. KYL. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. As the Senator knows, a legitimate certain amount of
analysis has to be made by DOD in order to be able to submit to the
Congress a plan that is realistic both in cost and judgment about what
the size will be. Every single testimony, from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff through Secretary Gates, has committed to the maintenance of a
viable triad. That could not be more clear in this record.
Mr. KYL. If I could just interrupt my colleague, who interrupted me.
Mr. KERRY. Absolutely.
Mr. KYL. A viable triad at a minimum, per se, has to include nuclear
capability or it is not part of our nuclear triad, right? And what I am
saying here is that the administration is not assuring us that the
long-range bomber will be nuclear capable. So maybe we have a dyad now,
not a triad.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again--
Mr. KYL. Go ahead. I will yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. This is very important to the sort of understanding of
where we are here and what the real differences are.
All of these systems, all three--DOD has scheduled and put out a
timeline. Now, they have to go through that process. The fact is, they
have stated in the 1251 report that they are going
[[Page 22343]]
to replace the Ohio class submarine when it commences scheduled
retirement in 2027. I do not think President Obama is going to be there
in 2027, unless there is some extraordinary transition in America. So
this goes way beyond this administration in terms of a decision and in
terms of a Congress. The Navy is going to sustain the existing Trident
II through at least 2042. That is on the books right now with the
robust life extension program. The current Minuteman life extension
program will keep the fleet in service through 2030. And DOD has
already begun the preparatory studies on replacement options, which
will begin in 2012. And the soon-to-be-completed long-range bomber
issue the Senator just raised is only on what type of new bomber is
needed, not whether there will be a new bomber.
So the future Congresses and future administrations are really going
to make this decision. So to suggest that somehow the Obama
administration can right now have this treaty held accountable to
decisions where every one of those delivery platforms is going to be in
existence well beyond the life and public service of any of us here I
think is a completely inappropriate standard.
I would ask my colleague, why a 2027 date and a 2042 date and a 2030
date and a commitment to a bomber, even though they do not know what
kind of bomber, why that is not satisfactory?
Mr. KYL. Let me answer a question with a question.
First of all, given the fact that I think we are taking 30-minute
segments each and we are having a debate here, can we agree that we
will debate until 7 o'clock, and you can have half the time and I will
have half the time? Either that or I am going to have to quit yielding
to make my points.
Mr. KERRY. No, no, no. I appreciate that. And the Senator is always
good about engaging in this.
Mr. KYL. And I am happy to do it either way.
Mr. KERRY. I just think it is important to get it out. I do not need
that time. I think it is important. I want Senator Kyl to have his
time--
Mr. KYL. Let me respond to this question.
Mr. KERRY. And I will not interrupt him, but I wanted to try to see
if we could not engage a little in what the Senate does, which is
debate.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, this is the kind of engagement
we need on this treaty and on so many other issues in this body. Too
many times it is a Senator coming down and giving a speech, and half of
us or more are not listening. And this kind of colloquy can develop
more useful material for our colleagues and for the record than
anything else. So I am very happy to engage in it. I just want to make
sure I do not run out of my time with my colleague's questions.
But here is how it relates, and here is the importance.
We are being told that even though the delivery systems--and
remember, this treaty deals with warheads and delivery systems. Let's
leave the warheads off to the side for a moment. The delivery systems--
which are the submarines with their missiles, the long-range bombers,
with cruise missiles in some cases, and our ICBM force and the Russian
counterparts--those delivery systems are constrained in this treaty.
The numbers are brought down to 700 deployable systems. So the question
we have asked, naturally enough is, Is that enough? Will that work to
cover all of the targets we need to cover?
I talked this morning about--and the answer to that question depends
in part on what our future plans are because--take the B-52. Most of
the pilots who are flying B-52s--I think we are two generations beyond
the time these B-52s were built. These are old, aging aircraft. And
everybody realizes even the B-1s and to some extent the B-2s need to be
replaced. So the decisions to do that need to be made very soon.
Whether 700 is a good number will depend on whether we have an
adequate triad to deliver these weapons when the time comes. So
naturally we ask the question, What is our triad going to look like? It
is true that some of these systems--the new systems that replace what
we currently have--will not be available until outside the 10-year
limit of the treaty.
But it is also true that every one takes an inordinate amount of
time. How do they take so much time? I don't know. It seems as though
in World War II we had all kinds of weapons systems come together to be
built and fight the war and it is over in 5 or 6 years, but nowadays it
takes 5 or 6 years just to get something ready to go, and then it takes
them that long to deploy. So these are long timeframes for development
and deployment.
It is true the Navy has already made the basic decision for the
submarine, but I haven't mentioned the Navy. That is not my concern.
But my concern is the IBM force and the bomber force.
I will leave the point with this: What is troubling to me is that on
the bomber force, our administration is unwilling to commit we will
have a bomber triad nuclear capable. That is an important decision,
because if we are talking about 700 delivery vehicles that will not
include nuclear-capable bombers, I have a problem. The reason is,
because when you get briefed on how we are going to deliver these
weapons if, God forbid, they ever have to be delivered or how we are
going to deal with a potential Russian breakout, for example, or how we
are going to deal with a problem if, let's say, we have an issue with
one of our submarine or ICBM components to the triad, if we don't have
a bomb-carrying or cruise missile-carrying nuclear capability with our
bombers, then it is quite obvious the viability of our triad is
implicated.
So we have to know these things. It is not some esoteric question. We
are talking about delivery systems being brought down to 700 and is
that too low. It is not too low if we have a very viable triad, but it
becomes too low if our triad is not viable.
In the time remaining, let me talk about missile defense. This is
something a lot of my colleagues have talked about. It is kind of core
to the concerns a lot of us have with the treaty and, frankly, my
ultimate support or not will depend, to some extent, on how we resolve
this issue, whether it is by amendment to the preamble or the treaty or
the resolution of the ratification or a combination of things. But,
clearly, this treaty implicates U.S. missile defense, and that is
wrong.
One of the chief achievements of the Bush administration was to
finally decouple missile defense and strategic offensive weapons and
the treaties that deal with strategic offensive weapons. It was
somewhat limited in the START treaty, but in the Moscow Treaty of 2002
we said: We are going to reduce our weapons. If the Russians want to do
the same, that is fine with us. We don't need a treaty to deal with
that. The Russians essentially said: We want a treaty, and we want you
to limit your missile defenses. We said no, and they eventually
relented and said OK.
I have spoken with Secretary Rice and Under Secretary Feith and other
people in the administration who count it as one of their achievements,
the fact that we finally decoupled those two issues. In this treaty,
they are right back together again and in a way that is inimicable to
other defenses by the United States. That is what I want to focus on.
We don't think there should be any limitations on U.S. missile defense.
Yet the New START treaty not only contains specific limitations, though
we were told there wouldn't be any, but it also reestablishes this
unwise linkage I talked about in the preamble.
Let me quote three things that Under Secretary Tauscher said as of
March 29 of this year:
The treaty does nothing to constrain missile defense . . .
this treaty is about strategic weapons. There is no limit on
what the United States can do with its missile defense
systems.
The third quote:
There are no constraints to missile defense.
Those three statements are not true because it turns out there are
limitations and constraints specifically in the treaty. Article V,
section 3 specifically constrains a particular kind of missile defense,
the United States
[[Page 22344]]
using a strategic offensive silo, for example, to use for defense. We
have done that before. Our current plans are not to do it again because
it is expensive. We might not do it in the future. This administration
says it doesn't want to, but it is certainly constraining. How can you
say those three statements by Under Secretary Tauscher are true? They
are false. The administration simply says: Well, yes, there are limits,
but we don't intend to do that anyway, so it is kind of a theoretical
limit.
Well, in the first place, why is there a limitation on any missile
defense capability in this treaty? We thought this was about, as
Secretary Tauscher said, strategic weapons. Well, it turns out the
Russians, of course, want to make it also about missile defense. One
way they make it about missile defense is by article V, section 3 or
paragraph 3, specifically constraining a particular way we would
develop missile defense.
That is what we object to, that linkage. Why is that important?
Because the Russians have always wanted to limit U.S. missile defenses,
and this now gets the foot in the door for them to argue that under the
treaty, they would have a right to withdraw if we improve our missile
defenses. That gets to the real issue, and that is the preamble to the
treaty.
I wish to quote from Richard Perle and Ed Meese, both of whom served
in the Reagan administration. Richard Perle was with President Reagan
at Reykjavik, a seminal moment in arms control history and for the
Reagan administration. It was a time when President Reagan decided
missile defenses for the United States were so important that he would
walk away from a major strategic offensive weapon proposal that had
been made to him by President Gorbachev. Here is what they write:
With this unfortunate paragraph, New START returns to the
old Cold War `balance of terror' and assumes that attempts to
defend the U.S. and its allies with missile defenses against
strategic attack are threatening to Russia and thus
destabilizing. Limiting missile defenses to preserve U.S.
vulnerability to Russian strategic nuclear strikes (as
defined by the Russians) will result in less effective
defenses against any and all countries, including Iran and
North Korea.
That is the problem.
How does that problem arise? Because of the language in the preamble.
This is the language followed by two signing statements from Russia and
the United States that define the intentions of the two countries with
respect to this issue of missile defense. Here is what the preamble
states:
The current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the
viability and effectiveness of the strategic arms of the
parties.
That is what it says, in part.
Quote:
Current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the
viability and effectiveness of the strategic arms of the
parties.
``Current,'' that is new language. That was not in the START I
treaty. So what they are doing is defining the current systems. Why is
that important? Because later they talk about any additions that would
qualitatively or quantitatively improve our system would allow the
Russians to withdraw.
Here is what--well, let me just make one point before I quote that.
The administration says the preamble is not important because you can
always walk away from a treaty, and even though the Russians say this
preamble language gives them the right to walk away from the treaty,
they can do it anyway, so what is the big deal?
Well, you can't just do it on a whim. We agree that if there is a
matter that is so important to either country that it constitutes an
exceptional circumstance referred to in article XIV which is the
withdraw clause, then a party could withdraw. So, yes, it is true, that
either party can define anything as an exceptional circumstance and
therefore withdraw, but that is bad faith and it clearly is something
that would be very difficult for a country to do, unless a country had
built into the treaty the very excuse that they are talking about as
grounds for leaving the treaty. What would that extraordinary event be?
Well, it would be the improvement of U.S. missile defense systems.
Here is what Foreign Minister Lavrov said on March 28:
[T]he treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only
within the context of the levels which are now present in the
sphere of strategic defensive systems.
That is their position. That is their legal position. That is what
they mean by ``current'' in the preamble. The reason that legal opinion
is important is because the United States does intend--if you believe
Secretary Gates and I certainly do--does intend to develop missile
defense capabilities that could qualitatively advance our protection
against a missile coming from Russia. It is not necessarily designed
for that purpose. It may be designed to thwart an ICBM from Iran or
from North Korea, but it has that capability and the Russians can
easily define it as such.
Here is the Russian legal opinion:
The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United
States of America on the reduction and limitation of
strategic offensive arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010,
can operate and be viable only if the United States of
America refrains from developing its missile defense
capabilities, quantitatively or qualitatively.
Well, we will develop our missile defense capabilities quantitatively
and certainly qualitatively. That is what the phased adaptive approach
Secretary Gates has announced is all about: a qualitative improvement
of our missile defense capabilities. So how would the Russians treat
that? Their statement, their signing statement, signed at the time that
the treaty was signed, says the exceptional circumstances referred to
in article XIV, the withdrawal clause of the treaty, include increasing
the capabilities of the U.S. missile defense system in such a way that
threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian
Federation.
That is why this preamble is so important. They treat it as the legal
basis for their withdrawal if we improve our missile defenses
qualitatively, which we most certainly will, and potentially
quantitatively.
They have already built this into the record. From my point of view
and a lot of my colleagues, this can only be read as an attempt to
exert political pressure on the United States to forestall continued
development and deployment of our missile defenses, and there is
evidence it has already worked. First of all, we have pulled back from
the deployment of the ground-based interceptor system that the Bush
administration had developed and was prepared to deploy in Poland with
the radars associated in Czechoslovakia, and we have also said now that
with respect to our NATO deployment of the so-called phased adaptive
approach, the first three phases will be deployed, but the fourth
phase, the one that is most effective against an ICBM coming from long
range, which could include a country such as Russia, is available--not
deployed but available--by 2020.
Instead of having a firm rebuttal in response to what the Russians
said in the preamble and in their signing statement accompanying the
signing of the treaty, what was our response? It was not a firm
rebuttal. We didn't say: No, that is not correct. That is not our
understanding. That is not what we did, even though we had done that,
by the way, with the START treaty. We pushed back very firmly on the
Russians' signing statement. But instead, the State Department response
to the Russian unilateral statement is as follows:
The United States of America takes note of the statement on
missile defense by the Russian Federation. Defense. The
United States missile defense systems are not intended to
affect the strategic balance with Russia. The United States
missile defense systems would be employed to defend the
United States against limited missile launches, and to defend
its deployed forces, allies and partners against regional
threats. The United States intends to continue improving and
deploying its missile defense systems in order to defend
itself against limited attack and as part of our
collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key
regions.
In other words, don't worry, Russia. We are not going to develop
missile defenses that could thwart your strategic offensive
capabilities. We are only developing missile defenses that would be
effective against regional threats,
[[Page 22345]]
against limited missile launches, against limited attack.
So it appears to me that while the Russians have built into this
treaty and into the preamble the perfect argument for withdrawal and
they have directly said it constitutes exceptional circumstances under
their interpretation of article XIV, the United States has not
responded with a negative but rather with a statement that says: Don't
worry.
Might I inquire, is the original 30 minutes which this side was
allotted consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has no time
limitation right now because there is no one following.
Mr. KYL. Let me do this, since I do see Senator Casey on the floor,
and Senator Kerry may have something more to say. Let me try to sum up
what I am saying about missile defense, although there is much more to
talk about, and this will very definitely be the subject of maybe even
the first amendment that is offered on our side because there has been
such a cavalier attitude about this on the other side: We don't need
any amendments. We don't need any missile defenses. This is serious
business. You would never enter into a contract to buy a car or a
house, for example, with a degree of uncertainty or disagreement
between the parties as to what the terms mean. Think about this treaty.
This is a very serious proposition that starts with a fundamental
disagreement between the parties and clearly could create enormous
complications in our relationships in the future.
If I could just finish this point. Instead of creating a more stable
relationship, a relationship built on the reset, a relationship which
is built on very clear, transparent views of things on how we are
moving forward together, built into this treaty is an inherent conflict
that can cause nothing but trouble in the future unless the United
States says: Fine. We will not develop any missile defenses that could
conceivably be effective against Russia, which then means that they
couldn't be effective against an ICBM from Iran or an ICBM from Korea.
This is the dilemma presented by this treaty and its preamble terms.
This is what causes us such great concern. I am happy at this point to
yield to my colleague, and if he would like to engage in a colloquy,
that would be fine.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I want to
take a moment, though, to address this point he made--I think it is
central--and then we can talk about it. Then I want to give Senator
Casey an opportunity to speak.
I say to my colleague from Arizona that a lot of us are scratching
our heads trying to figure out what we have to do to get the Senator
from Arizona to accept yes for an answer--yes on modernization, yes on
our willingness to go forward and build a missile defense.
It has been said again and again and again by the highest officials
of our government--and I think the President will make some further
statement about this, hopefully, within the next hours or the next
day--that can indicate the absolute total commitment to proceed forward
and the irrelevance of what the Senator is referring to in the context
of a statement that is not within the four corners of the agreement,
that has no legal binding authority at all--none.
Don't accept my word for it. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, whom
I know the Senator respects enormously, said the following on May 25:
So you know the Russians can say what they want. But as
Secretary Clinton said, these unilateral statements are
totally outside the treaty, and they have no standing. They
are not binding. They never have been.
That is one statement.
LTG Patrick O'Reilly is the Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
He testified on June 16, and this is a yes:
I have briefed the Russian officials in Moscow, a rather
large group of them, in October of 2009. I went through all 4
phases of the phased adaptive approach, especially phase 4.
And while the missiles that we have selected, as far as the
interceptors in phase 4, as Dr. Miller says, provide a very
effective defense for a regional-type threat, they are not of
the size that have a long-range to be able to reach strategic
missile fields.
He says:
It's a very verifiable property of these missiles, given
their size, and so forth. It was not a very controversial
topic of the fact that a missile given the size of the
payload, could not reach their strategic fields. I have
briefed the Russians personally in Moscow on every aspect of
our missile defense development. I believe they understand
what it is and that those plans for development are not
limited by this treaty.
So in the treaty ratification resolution--here I will make the
Senator from Arizona happy, but I will also not please him. The happy
part: If we want to be purely technical and sort of be kind of literal
as to technical writing of some particular thing, can we say that
article V has a limitation on strategic defense? Yes, in the most
limited technical way we can say there is a limitation. The limitation
is that we can't take intercontinental ballistic missile silos, other
than the four already grandfathered--the new ones--and convert them
into an interceptor missile silo.
In that sense, we have limited something, but have we limited missile
defense? As we think about it in its larger strategic context, the
answer is, no, not one iota. Why? Because those particular silos cost
more money, and in a deficit-conscious age, where we are trying to cut
spending, it is a heck-of-a-lot smarter to dig a new hole, build a new
silo that is more effective, more efficient, less costly, and does the
same thing. That is our plan.
So there is no limitation on the ability to actually deploy missile
defense. So if we want to play a technical game on the floor and run
away and say: Oh, there is a limitation here; that is terrible, well,
you can do that, but it doesn't make sense. It doesn't actually limit
the plans of this administration to go forward with real missile
defense and with a system that allows us to intercept missiles fired
from a silo in a missile field in the United States.
What is more, if we do convert those other silos, we don't have a
mechanism for determining what kind of missile is coming out of there.
Is it an ICBM or an interceptor? What happens if we are firing one of
those missiles to intercept a rogue missile from North Korea or
wherever, and the Russians happen to misinterpret it and they don't
know what it is--there is no plan or anything that says we can do that.
In fact, we are safer, given the way the administration has decided
to deploy this. Here is what the resolution of ratification says: It
says in understanding No. 1, missile defense--and this is what we will
vote on. It says it is the understanding of the United States that the
New START treaty does not impose any limitations on the deployment of
missile defenses other than the requirements of paragraph 3 of article
V that I just referred to about the silos that we don't want to do
anyway, which costs the American people more and will make us less
safe. We don't want to do that. So that is in there. That is all that
is in there.
It then goes on to say that this provision shall not apply to ICBM
launchers that were converted prior to the signature of the treaty.
Then paragraph (b) says any additional New START treaty limitation on
the deployment of missile defense, beyond that one I just referred to
that we are talking about, including any limitations that come out of
the Bilateral Consultative Commission, those would require an amendment
to the New START treaty which could only enter into force with the
advice and consent of the United States Senate. That is it. We have
control over whatever might happen beyond that one simple silo issue.
I respectfully suggest we ought to listen to the folks who are
telling us what they have accomplished. The Secretary of Defense said,
from the very beginning of this process more than 40 years ago, the
Russians have hated missile defense. It is because we can afford it and
they can't; and we are going to be able to build a good one and are
building a good one, and they probably aren't. They don't want to
devote the resources to it, so they try to stop us from doing it
through political means.
This treaty doesn't accomplish that for them. That is what Secretary
Gates has said. This treaty doesn't accomplish it. I believe Secretary
of Defense
[[Page 22346]]
Gates. I believe GEN Patrick O'Reilly, who serves our country with one
purpose. He is not a member of a party or here for politics. He
believes he is defending the Nation. He says he told the Russians in
full that we are doing phase 4. We are going forward.
Finally, Secretary Clinton said to the Foreign Relations Committee
that the Obama administration has consistently informed Russia that,
while we seek to establish a framework for U.S.-Russian BMD
cooperation, the United States cannot agree to constrain or limit U.S.
BMD abilities operationally, numerically, qualitatively,
geographically, or in other ways. I don't know how much more ``yes''
you can have in statements.
One last thing with respect to the comment about how they can
withdraw: Mr. President, they can withdraw for any reason they want, at
any point in time, just by noticing us that they are going to do that.
Guess what. So can we. Both parties have the right to withdraw. So this
isn't some new component they can withdraw from. The point I make to my
colleague--and he is very intelligent and knows these issues very
well--the Senator from Arizona knows we can't unilaterally get another
country to change its perception of how they may feel threatened. That
is what drove the arms race for 50 years.
If the United States of America has an ability to knock down their
missiles that they think defend them, and all of a sudden they no
longer believe those missiles can defend them because we can knock them
down, what do you think they are going to do? They are going to scratch
their heads and say: Wow, we ought to develop some method to guarantee
that they can't knock them down, or that we have enough of them so that
we can overwhelm whatever system they have that knocks them down.
We went through this with President Reagan, and we have spent
billions trying to pursue this. We understand that.
The fact is, they are just stating a truism. Those are not my words;
those are Dr. Henry Kissinger's words, who said all the preamble does
is acknowledge that they believe there is a connection. We have stated
simultaneously that we don't care if they believe there is a
connection. We stated that. Secretary Clinton stated it, Secretary
Gates stated it, and the President has said we are going forward with
our phase 4.
Now, it is not connected. There is no legal, binding connection
whatsoever in this treaty. This treaty does not constrain America's
capacity to develop a robust, qualitatively superior, improved system.
If we do, we are going to make a decision, when we deploy it, to accept
whatever consequences come with whatever shape and form we do deploy.
But there is no restraint on our ability to do it.
In fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ought to be
leaping at this opportunity because it, in effect, codifies America's
intent and codifies our independence and capacity to go off and do what
we are going to do. I wish I could get the Senator from Arizona to
accept yes.
Mr. KYL. I have a brief response. There are concerns by a lot of
colleagues on my side of the aisle, so it is not just a matter of
satisfying John Kyl. Let's understand that. I would be happy to take
yes for an answer--if that were the answer.
My colleague confuses two things. First, the preamble has been agreed
to by both parties. This is not just a Russian statement of intent. The
preamble is part of the treaty that we have agreed to. For the first
time, it connects missile defense with strategic offensive limitations
by saying the current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the
viability and effectiveness of the strategic arms of the parties.
Secondly, my colleague says it is a technical argument that the
treaty otherwise constrains missile defenses. It is more than a
technical argument. It specifically does--and there was no place in
this treaty for any limitation on missile defenses or how important or
unimportant they are. Why would the Russians insist on putting that in
there except to establish the beachhead? The point is that, yes, a
strategic arms control treaty will deal with missile defense. It does,
and the preamble does too by linking the two.
Why is this important? There is not a technical statement in the
treaty that says the United States will limit its missile defenses.
That is true. But because the Russians interpret the extraordinary
events--the technical term under article IV that would permit a country
to withdraw--as specifically including the U.S. development of missile
defenses that are qualitatively better than we have now, better than
current policy, because that is their interpretation, whether or not we
agree with that interpretation, we have created a dichotomy between the
two parties to a very important contract. They interpret it one way and
we interpret it another. What will the inevitable result be?
Disagreement between our countries about a fundamental point, one
which, according to the Russians, will require them to engage in a new
round of the arms race that will begin, according to President
Medvedev.
They are saying: If you don't agree with this, under the
circumstances we are going to engage in another round of strategic
offense weapon building.
What we on our side are concerned about is that President Obama, who
has already backed off the deployment of the GBI system, which was the
most robust American missile defense system, and has qualified, it
appears, the deployment of the fourth phase of the phased adaptive
approach, and who other people in the administration speak in terms of
that--I am talking about the State Department and our signing
statement--they suggest we would only develop a missile defense against
a limited or regional threat.
Those are reasons to believe this position of Russia is already
working to cause the United States to back away from what would have
otherwise been a much more robust development of missile defenses to
protect the people of the United States.
So that is the argument we are making. We can say that, technically,
anybody can withdraw from the treaty all they want to and the preamble
doesn't mean anything or so on. Well, it appears to have already had a
significant meaning within this administration is the point we are
trying to make.
Mr. KERRY. Well, Mr. President, I want the Senator from Pennsylvania
to be able to have his chance, and we are running out of time, but I
disagree with the Senator with respect to the judgment he has made with
regard to what it does or does not do, and we will have an opportunity
to be able to further discuss that component of it.
But let me remind the Senator of what Secretary Gates said this May.
He said, under the last administration as well as under this one, it
has been the U.S. policy not to build a missile defense that would
render useless Russia's nuclear capabilities. It has been a missile
defense intended to protect against rogue nations, such as North Korea
and Iran or countries that have very limited capabilities. He went on
to talk about the expense and capacity we have today.
We are going to continue to develop whatever the best system is we
are able to develop that could protect the United States of America. We
support that. The administration could not be more clear in its
determination to continue to do that, including phase IV. I will
submit, when we get time and come back, further statements and further
clarification to the Senator that hopefully can give him a comfort
level that there is no dichotomy, that we are proceeding forward, and
the Russians understand what we are doing.
We should not misinterpret. Preambles have historically incorporated
statements that one side or the other need for domestic consumption for
their politics. There is no misinterpretation here about where we are
headed, what we are committed to do, and I would think the recent
announcement by the administration in Lisbon and the embrace of this
effort through the European countries, our allies, would be strong
testimony to the direction we are moving with respect to this missile
defense.
We will continue this. I look forward to doing that with my
colleague. I
[[Page 22347]]
thank him for his courtesy, and I look forward to further discussion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am grateful for the work our chairman,
Chairman Kerry, has put into this treaty over many months now--in fact,
many years when you consider his work as a member and now chair of the
Foreign Relations Committee.
We are grateful for the debate we have just heard. These are
critically important issues we are talking about, and that is one of
the reasons why it is critically important we make sure the American
people know what the stakes are. Without ratification of this treaty,
we are, in fact, less safe than we should be. I think the American
people understand that. I also believe the American people want to make
sure that even upon ratification of this treaty, the New START treaty,
that in no way will our security be undermined as relates to our
nuclear arsenal. We can say, without qualification and without
hesitation, that ratification of the New START treaty doesn't in any
way undermine the safety, security and effectiveness and even the
reliability of our nuclear arsenal.
So these are critically important issues. We know there has been kind
of a side debate about time and timing. We know that in addition to all
the living Secretaries of State who have supported ratification, former
President George Herbert Walker Bush, Secretary Gates, and Admiral
Mullen, our leading national security team--but also I think the
American people--want to tell us in a very direct way that we are going
to continue to work up to and through the holidays, if that is
necessary, because I think a lot of Americans agree with what BG John
Adams recently said:
We have 150,000 United States warriors doing their job over
Christmas and the new year. The U.S. Senate should do its job
and ratify this treaty.
That is not a comment by a public official, that is from BG John
Adams.
We know similar treaties in the past have been overwhelmingly
bipartisan. I think when we finally get to the vote, this will be as
well, and there is evidence of that both in the Foreign Relations
Committee--a committee I am proud to be a member of, working with
Chairman Kerry on this treaty ratification and the work done in the
committee--but also we are seeing a lot of bipartisanship as well in
the Senate as we are discussing the eventual ratification.
I wished to talk about two or three issues but, first of all,
ratification as it relates to verification.
I think in our own lives, no matter who we are, when we are making an
important decision and we are reaching conclusions, we want proof. We
want information that is conclusive so we can make important decisions
in our own lives. The same is true, and certainly even more urgent,
when we are talking about nuclear weapons. When we talk about a treaty
that we are working to ratify, we are talking about a couple of basic
issues. One of them is verification.
What does verification mean? Well, it means that, for example, the
American people hope we have in place--and they know we will upon
ratification--a verification and tracking system that will give us the
assurance that will allow us to be secure in the knowledge we are going
to be able to do everything humanly possible to verify. The treaty
contemplates ways to do that, and there are four or five I will
mention.
First of all, invasive onsite inspections, as you would want in any
situation in your own life. You would want to make sure you can be
onsite. The problem right now is, we have gone all these months without
verification in place. So we want to have boots on the ground and
experts trained to verify what the situation is when they are reviewing
the Russian nuclear weapons.
Second, it allows us to use the wonders of American technology to
help us on this--the so-called national technical means.
Third, what is referred to as ``unique identifiers'' placed on each
weapon so you can track each weapon because of that identifier. That is
a critically important part of this.
The data exchanges between our two countries and certainly the prompt
notification of the movement of weapons.
This treaty permits up to 18 short-notice, onsite inspections each
year to determine the accuracy of Russia's data and to verify
compliance. We will talk more about that later.
But of course when the American people talk to us, they tell us they
expect us to get this right. They want to make sure there is a very
strong verification structure in place as we go forward. Without
ratification, we would not have that verification in place, and I think
a lot of people in the country expect us to ratify for that reason
alone, in addition to the other reasons.
We had a good debate today about missile defense--a second issue I
will address--and I know we are short on time, but the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee made it absolutely clear in the resolution of
ratification of the treaty that the treaty itself would not constrain
missile defense. Two understandings within that--understandings No. 1
and No. 2--as well as declarations No. 1 and No. 2 specifically address
and reiterate the U.S. commitment to developing and deploying missile
defenses.
Nothing in this treaty will prevent us from having a safe, secure,
and reliable nuclear arsenal and nothing will constrain our ability to
have missile defense. In fact, as Chairman Kerry noted--and it is
important to repeat this--the committee's resolution that brought the
treaty to the floor goes to great lengths to reaffirm and further
clarify the treaty's preamble, and Russia's unilateral statement
imposes no limits on our ability to develop and deploy these missile
defense systems.
I would note also, in connection with missile defense, that our
military and civilian leaders--the ones who have studied the treaty,
who have vast experience with national security and, in fact,
experience with nuclear weapons treaties of the past--have stated that
neither the language in the preamble referencing any interrelationship
between strategic offensive and defensive forces nor this unilateral
statement by the Russians places legally binding obligations on the
United States.
In fact, that summary of their position appeared in the Wall Street
Journal on April 20, 2010. So that is not just a statement by people on
this floor, it is cited in the Wall Street Journal.
I think when you step back from this, especially on missile defense,
in order to reach the conclusion that some have reached and the
determination they have made against the treaty--I guess on missile
defense grounds alone--you would have to believe it is a logical
conclusion that Secretary Gates doesn't seem to be too concerned about
missile defense. But apparently he is, and he has spoken to this. You
would have to conclude Admiral Mullen, who has said we should ratify
this, hasn't made a determination about missile defense. I think he has
and I think that is why we can rely upon that support and certainly the
support of the Missile Defense Agency Director, LTG Patrick O'Reilly,
someone whose job it is to be concerned about this and someone who has
experience with and involvement in what missile defense means and what
it means to our security.
So I think there is ample evidence and ample testimony on the record
before our committee and otherwise that indicates in no way does this
treaty constrain our ability to develop and deploy missile defense.
I know we are short on time, and I will wrap up, and I will have more
to say as we go forward. But when you consider the implications for our
security that this treaty involves and also think in a larger sense in
terms of how people view this debate in Washington, there are a lot of
people who are concerned about our economy. They are concerned about
their own jobs and concerned about their own family's economic or
financial security. That is a chief source of their anxiety. But I
think they also worry about our national defense. They are worried
about terrorism and they are worried about attacks and they are worried
about national security and their own security.
[[Page 22348]]
We need to give them assurances that at least as it relates to nuclear
weapons pointed at the American people, that we are taking a
significant step here--a historic step--that will ensure we have both a
safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to go at any nation that
would cause us harm, but at the same time we are taking steps to reduce
nuclear weapons across the world to make us, in fact, safer.
We all believe this. Both sides of the aisle believe this. We want a
strong national defense and we want to be safe. What we have to do in
the next couple days--after thousands and thousands of questions being
asked of and answered by the administration, after 15 or so hearings
just in the Foreign Relations Committee, after months and months of
debate, months and months of testimony, after all that--is complete our
work. We have to ratify this treaty, give the American people some
peace of mind in this holiday season that our defense is strong, that
our nuclear arsenal is strong, and that we can come together and ratify
a treaty that has been endorsed across the board by experts in national
defense, people who care deeply about our security.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty, also called the New START Treaty. New START, if ratified, will
have several major and positive impacts on our national security and on
global nonproliferation. I must express my deep disappointment that the
Senate has not yet ratified this treaty, and I join my friends Chairman
Kerry and Senator Lugar in appealing to all Senators for their
cooperation and support in ratifying this treaty. The New START treaty
is the right move for our country and for our world.
New START builds on a long history of strategic nuclear arms treaties
between the United States and Russia and Russia's predecessor, the
Soviet Union. Beginning with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
ratified in 1972, we have entered into three strategic arms control
treaties with the Soviet Union and Russia. This number does not include
START II, which was ratified by the Senate in 1996 but never entered
into force due to subsequent treaty mandates from the Russian Duma. The
most recent arms control treaty, the Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty, or SORT, was ratified unanimously in March 2003.
Unfortunately, both the SALT and original START treaties have
expired, with START concluding last December. The expiration of these
treaties means that the United States presently has no fully
implemented arms control treaty governing the nuclear weapons
stockpiles of the United States and Russia. This circumstance is
dangerous to our national security and needs to be rectified as soon as
possible.
I am not alone in holding that position. A bevy of experts have
strongly urged support for the New START treaty, from all points on the
political spectrum. Every senior leader and expert in the current
administration supports the quick ratification of New START, from
Secretaries Gates and Clinton to a whole range of uniformed leaders
such as Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; General
O'Reilly, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency; and General
Klotz, the Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command. General
Klotz is joined by many of his predecessors who commanded the Strategic
Command and Strategic Air Command, including General Welch, General
Chain, General Butler, Admiral Ellis, General Davis, and more. Former
Secretaries of Defense have come out in support of New START, including
James Schlesinger, William Perry, Frank Carlucci, and Harold Brown.
Former Secretaries of State of both parties are also advocating Senate
ratification: Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, James
Baker, and Henry Kissinger. The list of distinguished, trusted and
experienced advocates goes on and on, reading like a ``Who's Who'' of
the U.S. diplomatic and military communities.
One of the biggest reasons why so many experts are arguing for
ratification of this treaty is because it will do a great deal to
control Russian nuclear arms and resume verifiable inspections. New
START would reduce Russia's deployment of strategic nuclear warheads by
about 25 percent. U.S. inspectors have not held an inspection of
Russia's nuclear arsenal for a year; New START would resume
inspections. Specifically, U.S. inspectors will have 18 annual
inspections of Russian delivery vehicles and warheads. No previous
treaty has allowed direct U.S. monitoring of Russian warheads for
verification purposes. In fact, the close perspective that U.S.
inspections would allow under this treaty will eliminate the need to
share information about missile flight testing since that information,
also called telemetry, was used to determine the number of warheads
that a missile carried. New START will let us determine that by
counting the warheads themselves, not by evaluating missile flight
data. Secretary Gates has confirmed that New START is sufficiently
verifiable that the United States could determine if Russia made any
attempts to cheat on our break out of the treaty.
Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of New START is its contribution
to global nonproliferation, which all of us can agree would be strongly
beneficial to our national security interests. The United States will
never convince other states to forgo a nuclear program if we do not
show our own commitment to ending the nuclear scourge. More
importantly, we will not be able to reach agreement with our partners
about punitive nonproliferation measures without ratifying New START.
It is difficult to discuss this subject without raising the issue of
Iran's nuclear program. Today the international community has put in
place deservedly harsh sanctions against Iran's governing regime. These
sanctions are so tough that Kenneth Pollack quotes former Iranian
President Ayatollah Rafsanjani as calling them ``no joke'' and warning
``that [Iran's] situation is dire.'' These sanctions required patient
international cooperation that cannot survive American preventive
attacks. And without sanctions we should give up any hope of ending
Iran's nuclear program.
Instead, we must continue to isolate Iran by garnering international
support for further escalating sanctions. The United States, not Iran,
is the indispensable nation, and to gather support for punitive non-
proliferation we must lead by example. New START demonstrates our
commitment to limiting the threat of nuclear weapons--even those in our
own arsenal. And it bolsters our further requests to other countries to
squeeze Iran in ways that the ayatollahs cannot tolerate.
Even while New START will renew our leadership in nuclear
nonproliferation, the treaty reserves our right to pursue missile
defense options and maintain an effective nuclear deterrent. A nuclear
weapon in the hands of a terrorist is extremely unlikely to arrive on
the tip of a missile. Even so, the most ardent supporters of spending
billions more on strategic missile defense must acknowledge that New
START's provisions were so well negotiated as to bar limitations on
American defensive technologies. Similarly, the treaty will not prevent
us from deterring other nuclear powers. New START allows the United
States to maintain a highly credible deterrent.
Expansive and unchecked Russian and American nuclear arsenals are
dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary. Eliminating the threat of stolen
or illegally purchased nuclear weapons must be among the very gravest
threats that the United States faces today. New START will help us
diminish and contain that threat. At a time when leaders of both
parties are seeking ways to cut the budget deficit, our nuclear program
seems like an unnecessary and burdensome vestige of the Cold War. It is
difficult if not impossible to credibly argue today that the massive
nuclear arsenal we built to deter the Soviet Union serves our needs in
today's changed world, where terrorism and the support of terrorism
loom so large as threats to our security.
The time has come to do the right thing for the right reasons. Both
parties should cooperate, as we have in the past, on issues that will
make our country safer. No one should doubt that the New START treaty
will do exactly that. Especially on an issue so vitally important to
our security, and to
[[Page 22349]]
the security of our children and grandchildren, the American people
want and deserve a fair and straightforward debate. Partisan point-
scoring should be checked at the door. Let us vote to ratify New START.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have done a lot of important work this
year. We have reformed our health care system to give families more
options and more control. We have brought accountability to Wall
Street; and reigned in the reckless behavior that led to the economic
crisis. We have given relief to millions of Americans hurting because
of the economy. Now, it is time for us to protect the national security
of the United States.
First of all I want to say that I was pleased that we were able to
move forward and start debate on the treaty today. I hope we can
continue to have a process that allows for real discussion and debate.
This treaty is critical to the national security of the United
States. We know that one of the greatest security threats America faces
is a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist. A nuclear-armed
terrorist would not be constrained by doctrines of deterrence or
mutually assured destruction but could attack and destroy one of our
cities without warning. By ratifying this treaty, we can help stop that
tragedy from happening.
This treaty would secure nuclear stockpiles by taking nearly 1,500
U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons--weapons that now sit pointed at
cities like Washington and Moscow, Chicago and St. Petersburg--and put
them on ice. It has been more than a year since American inspectors
were on the ground monitoring the Russian nuclear weapons arsenal. It
is critical that we ratify this treaty so we can get that window into
exactly what the Russians are, or are not, doing.
This treaty preserves a strong U.S. nuclear arsenal. As treaty
negotiations were underway, U.S. Military leaders provided analysis and
determined the number of nuclear weapons we needed to retain to keep us
safe here at home.
With the United States and Russia controlling over 90 percent of the
world's nuclear weapons, we need the stability and transparency this
treaty would provide.
We aren't ratifying this treaty because we want to be Russia's best
friend. But we do need to work together with Russia to stop the most
dangerous nuclear threats from around the world, including Iran and
North Korea.
By ratifying the START treaty, we will increase our ability to work
with other countries to reduce nuclear weapons around the world and to
make sure that those weapons are kept safe and secure.
Given the obvious advantages of this treaty to our national security,
I hope we will be able to continue this institution's tradition of
bipartisan support for arms control. The START treaty builds on a long
history of bipartisan support for treaties which limit the strategic
offensive weapons of the United States and Russia.
The Senate, as well, has a long history of broad bipartisan support
for these types of treaties.
Continuing that tradition, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
overwhelmingly approved the resolution of ratification of the START
treaty with a bipartisan vote of 14 to 4.
The U.S. military leadership unanimously supports the treaty, and
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Admiral Mullen have spoken in favor of the treaty in their
testimony before the Senate.
Secretaries of State from the last five Republican Presidents support
the treaty because they know, in their words, the world is safer today
because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear
weapons.
A wide range of Republican and Democratic national security leaders
have come out in support of the treaty, including former President
George H.W. Bush, Colin L. Powell, Madeleine K. Albright, LTG Brent
Scowcroft, James Schlesinger, Stephen Hadley, Sam Senator Nunn, and
Senator John Warner.
As we enter this historic debate, we want to ensure that all voices
are heard. We plan to allow our Republican colleagues the opportunity
to express their views and concerns about the treaty and to have a
reasonable number of germane and relevant amendments.
Republicans have been included in the process from the beginning--the
resolution recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee that we will
debate was, at the urging of Senator Kerry, crafted by Senator Lugar to
reflect the views of Republican colleagues, and the Foreign Relations
Committee then adopted in its markup two additional Republican
amendments.
Senator Kyl raised legitimate concerns about the state of the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex, and the administration responded with a
commitment of $85 billion to upgrade that complex over the next 10
years.
But there is a difference between legitimate policy concerns and
those who simply wish to use procedural tricks to keep the treaty
moving forward.
We can easily complete this treaty with a reasonable amount of time,
as the Senate has in the past. We can continue our institution's long
history of bipartisan support for arms control. And we can take 1,500
nuclear weapons off their launchpads and make the future far safer for
the children of America and the world.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think we have had a good opportunity
throughout today and yesterday to open some of the issues and give
colleagues a sense of what is in the treaty, the resolution of
ratification, and how it addresses many of the concerns. My hope is,
perhaps, as we go out of executive session and into legislative session
for a period of time, it will give some of us an opportunity to sit
down and work together to see if we can find some of the clarifications
that might resolve some of those issues for people.
Senator Lugar and I are both prepared to sit with our colleagues and
try to do that, and obviously we look forward to being able to get back
to begin the process of legislating on whatever understandings,
declarations, and clarifications Senators may have. I would ask my
colleagues to carefully read the resolution and look at the many places
in which rail-mobile missile defense and all these other issues have
been addressed by that resolution.
I see the hour of 7 has arrived, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Members on both sides anticipated my filing
cloture tonight on the spending bill that would take us through next
year. Everyone knows we are operating under a continuing resolution
that expires Saturday night at midnight. Senator Inouye has worked so
very hard for the entire year, working on a bipartisan agreement and in
a bipartisan manner, to put together a bill that will responsibly fund
the government for the next fiscal year. He has not done this as king.
He has done it working with Democrats and Republicans. Senator Cochran
has been in on all the efforts Senator Inouye has made. The product was
filed a few days ago. The overall spending level was supported by 40
Republicans earlier this year.
In addition, the bill contains priorities for Members, Democrats and
Republicans. Although some of my Republican colleagues in recent days
have publicly distanced themselves from the idea that Members have a
role to play in the appropriations process, all of them did nothing
privately to withdraw their priorities from this bill.
I will not take a long time tonight, but I will say a few things
about this.
[[Page 22350]]
It is no surprise because I have said it before. I, like everyone here,
support the Constitution of the United States. I don't carry this with
me every day but nearly every day. I don't read it every day, but I
have a pretty good idea what is in it. One of the things I understand
and support is that the Founding Fathers decided we should have a
unique form of government, with three separate and equal branches. I
believe, as one of the legislators here in the framework of the
government set up by the Founding Fathers, that I have a number of
responsibilities. One of those responsibilities set forth in that
Constitution is to make sure that the executive branch of government
does not take power away from us. Three separate, equal branches of
government, not three branches of government with one stronger than the
other. I think my Republican friends are giving up so much to the
executive branch of government in doing away with congressionally
directed spending.
It wouldn't matter if George Bush the first, George Bush the second,
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, President Clinton, or Barack Obama were
President. I don't like this grab of power. That is what it is. I don't
know why people in this branch of government are willing to give that
power up. This bill, put together by Senator Inouye and Senator
Cochran, is a good bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It
has priorities that are so vitally important to children.
Mr. President, 300,000 children in America, as a result of our not
moving forward, are going to be treated much differently. The Head
Start Program has been proven to be something that is vital to the
country, and 300,000 children will not be eligible for Head Start
because of this. Programs in our schools will be much less than they
should be. Senior citizens will be significantly harmed. We have in
this legislation programs that will create jobs, jobs through
developing infrastructure that is so desperately needed. This action
taken by my friends on the other side of the aisle is going to cause
people to lose their jobs.
Military construction. I have important bases vital to the security
of this Nation in Nevada. They are all going to be damaged as a result
of what has happened here. One reason I feel so put upon, which is
probably a word that people don't much care whether I am put upon, but
I tried to make this something that was good for the Congress. I was
elated that one of my Republican friends said: Here is who is going to
support you. Here is who is going to support you, up to nine.
I have talked to a number of those Senators. I will not identify
them. I know who they are. I have it right here. I won't tonight or any
time publicly ever say anything about who they are, but they know who
they are. In the last 24 hours they have walked away from the ability
for us to complete this legislation. I was told within the last 24
hours that we had bipartisan support to pass this bill. ``Many'' is a
word that is too large, but a number of Republican Senators told me
they would like to see it passed, and they couldn't vote for it.
Those nine Senators--I have called some of them tonight and visited
with them--will not support this legislation. We now have a simple
choice. Are we going to help the people in America--I have listed some
of the people who desperately need this help, and it appears that the
answer will be no--or will we wind up passing a short-term CR to keep
government running. In reality, we only have one choice, and that is a
short-term CR.
I asked my friend Senator McConnell if I should file cloture on the
CR we got from the House. He said no. And one thing about Senator
McConnell, I have found that he levels with me on issues. There is no
need to go through that procedure. It is not worth it to anybody. We
will not get a vote on that.
So in the next 24 hours or so, Senator McConnell and I will work to
try to come up with a CR to fund the government for a certain period of
time. That is where we are right now. I am sorry and disappointed.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, may I make a few observations about
where we are?
Mr. REID. Yes. I am going to file cloture tonight on the DREAM Act.
We will have a cloture vote on that Saturday morning fairly early. I am
going to file cloture on don't ask, don't tell tonight. So those will
be sequenced for Saturday or whenever we get to them. But we have to
move this along. Following that I was told by a number of Republican
Senators that they needed 6 or 7 days to debate and offer amendments on
the START treaty. That will certainly be available. We will finish, if
the math works out the way I believe it will, early Monday morning.
First of all, tomorrow we can debate START to everyone's heart's
content. They can offer as many amendments as they want, and then
Monday we can go to that again. This would be 3 days already completed
on that, 3 or 4 days, whatever is appropriate next week to complete the
START treaty. We would wind this up by taking care of the nominations
that Senator McConnell and I have been working on. That is the range of
things we have to do. I have told the two Senators from New York that I
will move to reconsider their vote at some time, but that is going to
happen fairly quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me respond briefly to the majority
leader. I too want to commend the members of the Appropriations
Committee for all the work they have done, particularly Republican
members of the Appropriations Committee who did spend an enormous
amount of time crafting and developing the 12 different appropriations
bills that we should have been acting on all year long. This is the
first time in modern history that not a single appropriations bill went
across the floor of the Senate--not a one. So the Appropriations
Committee members on a bipartisan basis did indeed do their job. The
problem was the full Senate didn't do its job. What we ended up with
was this, this almost 2,000-page Omnibus appropriations bill which we
only got yesterday.
The point is, the work the Appropriations Committee did in many
respects was squandered because the full Senate didn't do its job. This
is precisely the kind of thing the American people have gotten tired
of.
The message we ought to take out of this is that next year, we are
going to listen to the American people. We are going to do our work, do
it in a timely fashion. There is no more basic work than the funding of
the government. That is the first thing we ought to be doing.
Here we are trying to do it right at the end, as an old Congress goes
out of office and a new Congress comes in. The message is, let's don't
do this anymore. Let's make a bipartisan decision at the beginning of
the next session that the basic work of government is going to be done
in a timely fashion for an opportunity out here on the floor of the
Senate for Members of both parties to offer amendments, make
suggestions, and improve the bill.
I too respect the work the Appropriations Committee has done. I don't
agree with the priorities we have had here in the Senate about what
things are important. As a result of not doing the basic work of
government, here we are at the end struggling with this issue. There is
only one reason why cloture is not being filed and the majority leader,
to his credit, has already said it. He doesn't have the votes. The
reason he doesn't have the votes is because Members on this side of the
aisle increasingly felt concerned about the way we do business. For
many of our Members it was not so much the substance of the bill but
the process. Let's learn from this. We will get together, as the
majority leader said, and determine what appropriate time for a
continuing resolution makes sense to offer to govern on an interim
basis, and let's come back here after the holidays with a renewed
desire to do our business in a timely fashion and avoid this kind of
thing in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
[[Page 22351]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it doesn't take a person with a PhD to
understand that I differ with what my friend, the senior Senator from
Kentucky, said, things that don't indicate what history is in the
Senate. We have been facing 87 filibusters this Congress. For anyone to
suggest that the reason the work of Senators Inouye and Cochran was not
completed is because we didn't do the appropriations bills is
farfetched. Senators Inouye and Cochran, in good faith, worked toward
what they were told the Democrats and Republicans wanted to do; that
is, have a bill that took in the priorities of Democrats and
Republicans. The bill that we are talking about isn't a bill that is a
Democratic bill. It is a Democratic and Republican bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will my good friend yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask the majority leader, does he recall the
time I returned from the Appropriations Committee and said Senator
McConnell had come to the committee and said he was going to establish
the maximum amount that he would vote for in all the appropriations
bills, the 203(b) allocation of $1.108 trillion? And I said to the
majority leader, I think ultimately that is what we are going to be
voting for, Senator McConnell's number. Is the Senator from Nevada
aware of the fact that the bill we were going to consider was at that
number that was asked for by Senator McConnell in the Appropriations
Committee?
Mr. REID. Yes, and it satisfied what we had debated here on a number
of occasions and voted on, the so-called Sessions-McCaskill number. So
we did that. This is not a big balloon that we just threw up to see how
it would work out. Senator McConnell, who has had a longstanding
association with the Appropriations Committee, that was a number he
told us we should work with.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. As a former member of the Appropriations Committee, is
the Senator aware of the process in that committee, a bipartisan
process where the ranking Republican member and the Democratic chairman
of each subcommittee sit down to literally have a hearing, mark up a
bill, and accept earmarks from both sides of the aisle? That is the
common practice and has been followed with the bills that are currently
sitting in front of the minority leader?
Mr. REID. Yes. To Senator Cochran's credit, there were things he
thought should not be in the bill that Senator Inouye was putting
together. Senator Inouye, to his credit, said: OK, it does not go in.
Everything people wanted in this bill--in addition to the work that
went on on the subcommittee level, the full committee level--anything
that was added at a later time had to be approved by both Senator
Inouye and Senator Cochran.
Mr. DURBIN. On a bipartisan basis.
Mr. REID. That is right.
Mr. DURBIN. In every subcommittee.
Mr. REID. Yes. And things that Senator Cochran did not want in,
Senator Inouye, being the gentleman he is, said: OK. That is what I
will tell my caucus.
Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes, I will yield for a question, and, of course, I
maintain the floor.
Go ahead.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for a
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would ask the leader through the Chair,
is he aware that the bill that is before us, that apparently we do not
have enough votes for now, has gone through a very long committee
process? The transportation and housing bill that I worked with my
Republican colleague on, I did not agree with all of his requests, but
I gave him a lot in this bill, as we worked our way through it and
passed it out of subcommittee, passed it out of the full committee, a
committee of which the minority leader is a member.
All of the bills that are involved in this omnibus bill--every one of
them--went through a long, long process of committee hearings,
subcommittee markups and passage, and full committee markups and
passage.
The changes to this bill that have come to the floor have come as a
result not of a change in policy, but because we all were told that in
order to get an omnibus passed, we had to reduce the amount of that
bill that passed out of committee--each of those bills a significant
amount--to meet the McCaskill-Sessions level. So we went back and cut a
significant amount out of each one of our bills. The result is the
omnibus bill before us.
So the 2,000 pages that we are referring to have worked their way
through a process. I would ask the leader if he knows this. And the
difference is, we had to cut money to meet the level of Sessions-
McCaskill. That is what we have before us. And that is what we are
being told, after a year's worth of work, that somehow we do not have
the capability of knowing what is in the bill. Is the leader aware of
that?
Mr. REID. I am aware of it. But my friend, the Republican leader,
wants to ask a question or make some statement. But I would say this to
my friend from Washington, remember, this bill, which is 1,900 pages
long, consists of the work of 12 subcommittees.
Mrs. MURRAY. Right.
Mr. REID. It is work that has been done over the last year, or more
in some instances, to come up with a product. So if you break it down
per subcommittee, it is certainly a reasonable number of pages on each
subcommittee. Remember, there are 12 subcommittees that are a part of
it.
I would be happy to yield, without losing the floor, to my friend,
the Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I was just going to ask my friend--it is hard to ask a
question without making something of a statement in connection with it,
if that is OK.
Mr. REID. That is fine.
Mr. McCONNELL. I was not talking about the process by which the bill
was developed in committee. And I started off, I would say to my friend
from Nevada, commending the committee for its work. What I was
commenting upon was the lack of taking the bill up on the floor of the
Senate--over $1 trillion, the basic work of government.
And so, Mr. President, I would ask my friend, why, if these bills
enjoy bipartisan support--and they did--why were they not brought
before the full Senate and passed? I think I would say to my friend, I
expect it is because you had other priorities. And this is the basic
work of government. Why did we not bring any of these bills before the
Senate floor?
Mr. REID. I hope the court reporter will take down the smile I have
on my face because the answer to the question is kind of easy. We have
had to file cloture 87 times in this Congress because, on everything we
have tried to do, we have been obstructed. So that is the reason.
Everyone knows we have had some very big issues. When President Obama
was elected, we found ourselves in a deep, deep hole. It was so deep,
so deep. During the prior administration, we lost 8 million jobs. The
month that President Obama and President Bush shared the Presidency, in
January--that month--we lost 800,000 jobs. So we had a lot to do.
Now, I know people criticize our doing health care for various
reasons. There is criticism we did the bank reform bill, Wall Street
reform. We did housing reform. We had a very, very busy Congress to try
to dig ourselves out of the hole.
So I say to my friend, who, like me, has been on the Appropriations
Committee--I am not on it now but he is--the Appropriations Committee
is a wonderful committee. Everyone here knows why we did not have the
individual appropriations bills. I say to my friend, I hope next year
we can get them done. But I think there is more of a chance next year
because we have
[[Page 22352]]
gotten a lot done to help get ourselves out of the hole we found
ourselves in because of the previous 8 years which created the big hole
we had to kind of dig out of.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House with respect to H.R. 5281.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold for a second?
Mr. REID. Yes, I will.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate returns
to legislative session.
Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________
REMOVAL CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2010
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House with respect the H.R. 5281.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments numbered 1
and 2 of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5281) entitled ``An Act
to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve
certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation
against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and
for other purposes'' and be it further
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment numbered 3
of the Senate with a House amendment to the Senate amendment.
Motion To Concur
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
the Senate amendment No. 3, and I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 3
to H.R. 5281, the Removal Clarification Act [DREAM Act].
Joseph I. Lieberman, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Byron L.
Dorgan, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Robert Menendez,
Mark Begich, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill Nelson, Michael
F. Bennet, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Christopher J. Dodd, Richard Durbin, John F.
Kerry.
Motion To Concur With Amendment No. 4822
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
the Senate amendment No. 3, with an amendment which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the
House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 3, with an
amendment numbered 4822.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The provisions of this Act shall become effective 6 days
after enactment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4823 To Amendment No. 4822
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk
and ask the clerk to report it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4823 to amendment No. 4822.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``6'' and insert ``5''.
Motion To Refer With Amendment No. 4824
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to refer the House message to the
Senate Judiciary Committee with instructions to report back forthwith,
with the following amendment. I ask the clerk to state that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House
message on H.R. 5281 to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
with instructions to report back forthwith, with the
following amendment numbered 4824.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is requested to conduct a
study, nationwide, on the impact of any delay in implementing
the provisions of this Act.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4825
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to my instructions,
which is at the desk. I ask it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4825 to the instructions of the motion to refer H.R.
5281.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
``and include specific data on the impact of families who
would benefit from the act, and submit the data within 5 days
of enactment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4826 To Amendment No. 4825
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to my
instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4826 to amendment No. 4825.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``5'' and insert ``2''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, that was the DREAM Act.
____________________
SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask the Chair to lay before the Senate
a message from the House with respect to H.R. 2965, which is the don't
ask, don't tell legislation.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 2965) entitled ``An Act to amend the
Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business
Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology
Transfer Program, and for other purposes.'', with a House
amendment to the Senate amendment.
Motion To Concur
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965, and I send a cloture motion to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
2965, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act.
Joseph I. Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Michael F.
Bennet, Robert Menendez, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Frank R.
Lautenberg, Debbie Stabenow, Mark R. Warner, Tom Udall,
Jeff Merkley, Benjamin L. Cardin, Amy Klobuchar,
Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Carper, Al Franken.
Motion To Concur With Amendment No. 4827
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965, with an amendment which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with an
amendment numbered 4827.
[[Page 22353]]
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The provisions of this Act shall become effective
immediately.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4828 To Amendment No. 4827
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4828 to amendment No. 4827.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``immediately'' and insert 5 days.
Motion To Refer With Amendment No. 4829
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a motion to refer the House message
to the Senate Armed Services Committee with instructions to report back
forthwith, with the following amendment. And I ask the clerk to state
that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House
message to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions
to report back forthwith, with the following amendment
numbered 4829.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The Senate Armed Services Committee is requested to conduct
a study on the impact of implementing these provisions on the
family of military members.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4830
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to my instructions which
is at the desk. I ask the clerk to report that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4830 to the instructions of the motion to refer H.R.
2965.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
``and that the study should focus attention on the
dependent's children''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4831 To Amendment No. 4830
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to my
instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 4831 to amendment No. 4830.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
``include any data which might impact local communities''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorums required under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture
motions filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we proceed
to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each.
I would say, Mr. President, that we have made contact with the
Republicans, and they tonight do not wish to have more debate on the
START treaty. So that is why we are moving to morning business. People
can talk about whatever they want for the rest of the evening.
Tomorrow, I am going to move back to executive session to do the START
treaty. I hope we can make progress on that tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THANKING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the members
of America's Armed Forces who are deployed during this Christmas
season. The sacrifices of our military and those of their families are
always great, but especially so during wartime and the holidays. As
most Americans celebrate this time of joy and good cheer it is
important that we take a moment to honor and remember the brave men and
women in uniform who are defending our well being overseas and to thank
their families as well.
Kentucky's military installations have been in the thick of the fight
in the war on terror. The 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, for
example, is once again overseas. The unit is fully deployed and is
executing a critical mission in Afghanistan.
The Army's 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division is
currently deploying from Fort Knox to Afghanistan. The Duke Brigade, as
it is known, is the first unit of its kind at Fort Knox since the
1990s.
And the Kentucky National Guard continues to deploy to theater. Just
last week, members of the 123rd Civil Engineer Squadron left for
Southwest Asia.
I am profoundly grateful for the sacrifice of our servicemembers and
military families. And, as a Kentuckian, I swell with pride at the
contributions made by units from the Commonwealth's military
installations and by Kentucky servicemembers. During this holiday
season our prayers are with them.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN BELSKI
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Louisville,
Kentucky's, longtime meteorologist John Belski, whom a large swath of
Kentuckians have relied on for accurate weather forecasts for over 23
years. After a long and successful career, John has retired. This
September 8 he presented his final weather broadcast.
John began at WAVE-3 TV in Louisville in July 1987 and has been
welcomed into Kentuckians' homes ever since. A typical morning for
residents of the greater Louisville area began by tuning in to John for
important details about the day's forecast.
Before joining WAVE-3, John worked in Louisville at WLKY-TV and also
at stations in St. Louis and Columbia, MO. John's professionalism has
earned him several awards, including 15 different Best of Louisville
Magazine honors, the Best of Kentucky award by Kentucky Monthly
magazine and the LEO Readers' Choice Award, just to name a few.
John was at the center of the hard-hitting winter storm in 1994, when
Kentucky was blanketed with a record snowfall of more than 15 inches.
In August 2009 he stood watch when a massive rainstorm produced large
hail and flash flooding that caused major damage to some of Kentucky's
most well known attractions, including Churchill Downs. And who could
forget this time last year, when one of the most severe ice storms in
Kentucky's history crippled the area, leaving 760,000 residents without
power and causing 36 deaths across the State. Throughout it all, John's
was a calm and steady voice, providing viewers with critical
information.
Now that he has retired, I hope John will have more time to spend
with his wife Lynn and his two daughters. John is not just known for
his abilities as a meteorologist in Louisville. Whether it be partaking
in one of the many county fairs or being present at the Kentucky Derby,
John was always there, reporting. He is going to be missed enormously,
and I would ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him on behalf of
all Kentuckians for his service.
Mr. President, WAVE-3 TV recently published a story on the retirement
of their friend, John Belski, and I ask
[[Page 22354]]
unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From WAVE3.com, Aug. 18, 2010]
Meteorologist John Belski Retires from WAVE 3 TV
Louisville, KY (WAVE).--WAVE 3 Meteorologist John Belski
will retire from WAVE 3 TV on September 8, 2010, it was
announced by Regional Vice-President & General Manager Steve
Langford.
``Retirement for a deserving friend should always be looked
upon with happiness,'' said Langford. ``While I regret to see
John leave the airwaves, I respect his decision and wish him
and his family much happiness.''
``This is an opportunity for me to explore some new
possibilities outside of the TV business,'' Belski said.
``After all these years at WAVE 3 it's time for Kevin Harned
to take the reins and lead the weather team.''
Kevin Harned and John Belski first met when Kevin was in
high school. Harned wrote to Belski asking him to speak to
his 4-H Club in Nelson County. That meeting left an indelible
mark on Harned who persistently pursued his new career goal
to become a television meteorologist. ``John has been a great
mentor and a great friend,'' said Harned. ``We've covered a
lot of severe weather together and hopefully have helped to
keep our community safe from harm.''
John Belski first joined the WAVE 3 weather team in July
1987. Prior to that, he worked at WLKY-TV in Louisville and
also at stations in St. Louis and Columbia, Missouri. In
addition to his television forecasts John makes multiple
daily postings to his blog, Twitter and Face book sites. Over
the years John has been on the air on 18 different radio
stations and currently on 84 WHAS-AM and WMPI 105.3 FM. His
weather book ``Backyard Weather Folklore'' sold thousands of
copies.
``For the past 23 years John Belski has been the calming
voice in the storm while protecting our viewers during severe
weather,'' said Langford. ``His folksy, friendly style of
forecasting has made him a favorite in our community.''
John Belski has received numerous awards from community
organizations and publications including 15 different Best of
Louisville Magazine honors, the Best of Kentucky by Kentucky
Monthly magazine and the LEO's Readers' Choice Award. He has
anchored Emmy Award winning coverage of severe weather and
received the Special Service Award from the National Weather
Service and the Mark Trail Award for public awareness of NOAA
weather radios.
John Belski will present his last weather broadcast during
WAVE 3 News at 6:00 p.m. on September 8, 2010.
WAVE-TV is owned by Raycom Media, Inc., an employee-owned
company which is now one of the nation's largest
broadcasters. Currently the company owns and/or operates 42
television stations in 18 states. Raycom Media stations cover
more than 10.6 percent of the U.S. television households and
employ 3,500 individuals in full- and part-time positions.
Through Raycom Sports, the company owns and operates the
Continental Tire Bowl in Charlotte and two LPGA golf
tournaments, as well as produces pre-season NFL football
games for non-owned stations.
____________________
TRIBUTES TO RETIRING SENATORS
Evan Bayh
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague
and friend of mine--Senator Evan Bayh--who will be retiring from the
U.S. Senate when the 112th Congress convenes in January. I would like
to take this moment to thank Evan for his service, and wish him, his
wife Susan, and their twin boys Beau and Nick, the very best as they
embark on the next chapter in their lives.
Evan comes from a family tradition deeply rooted in public service
and committed to improving the lives of our fellow citizens. Our
fathers, Birch Bayh and Tom Dodd, served together in the U.S. Senate,
and instilled in both of us the desire to serve as we grew older.
Evan has dedicated the better part of his adult life to serving the
people of Indiana. He began his career in public service when he was
elected Indiana's Secretary of State in 1986. He then served as
Governor of Indiana for two terms starting in 1988. As Governor he
focused on fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean
government. In 1998, Hoosiers once again demonstrated their faith in
Evan Bayh by electing him to the U.S. Senate.
Throughout his career in public service, Evan has been particularly
vocal on issues related to our national security, economic
competiveness, and job creation. He has demonstrated his willingness to
work hard, a fact underscored by his membership on six Senate
committees--Aging, Armed Services, Banking, Energy and Natural
Resources, Intelligence, and Small Business. He has developed a broad
range of subject matter expertise, and has time and again demonstrated
his willingness to reach across the aisle to get things done for the
people of Indiana.
This Congress, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I had the
opportunity to work with Evan on several vital issues, such as his
contributions to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and
Disclosure, CARD, Act and Wall Street reform.
When Evan leaves the Senate in just a few short weeks, I believe he
will be remembered as a public servant who was devoted first and
foremost to advancing the interests of Hoosiers, and who was willing to
work across the aisle whenever he saw an opportunity to do the right
thing for our Nation.
Once again, I would like to thank Evan for his years of service, and
wish him well as he leaves the Senate. It has been a pleasure working
with him over the years, and I firmly believe that this body will not
be the same without him.
Bob Bennett
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and longtime
colleague Senator Bob Bennett who, like me, will be departing from the
U.S. Senate in just a couple of weeks. I would like to take this
opportunity to wish Bob, Joyce, and the rest of his family the very
best as he leaves the Senate and embarks on this new chapter in his
life.
Since he was first elected to this body in 1992, Bob has served the
people of Utah well as their Senator. Bob comes from a long line of
individuals dedicated to public service, and it is no surprise that he
himself decided to go down that path. Bob's grandfather, Heber J.
Grant, was the seventh President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. And Bob's father, Wallace F.
Bennett, represented the state of Utah in this very Chamber between
1951 and 1974, serving alongside my father, Tom Dodd.
Throughout the time that I have known and worked with him, I have
always found Bob to be receptive to the ideas of others and careful and
deliberate in his own evaluation of complex policy questions.
Of course, that is not to say that Bob Bennett isn't also a
determined partisan. Indeed, throughout his three terms here, Bob has
been one of the Senate's most consistently conservative voices. But in
spite of that, Bob has frequently reached across the partisan divide to
seek out areas of common ground and mutual interest with Democrats.
That willingness to engage and cooperate with colleagues has perhaps
been most evident in his work on the Senate Banking Committee.
Throughout our years of service together on that panel, Bob and I have
frequently been among the first to reach out across the aisle and
search for solutions to the challenges facing our Nation's financial
services sector. And from our work together during the savings and loan
crisis, to passage of legislation that provides a safety net for our
economy in the event of a devastating terrorist attack, we have
achieved some important results.
Bob chaired and I served as vice chairman of the Y2K Committee, to
ensure the integrity of our Nation's financial services sector. More
recently, in the fall of 2008, when the global financial system was on
the verge of collapse and our country was standing at the precipice of
an economic depression, Bob took a significant political risk by
supporting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which established
TARP. I realize that this was an incredibly difficult vote for Bob and
every other Member of this Chamber at the time.
But I am convinced that without elected officials who are willing to
cast those kinds of tough, yet necessary votes, this country would be a
very different place.
So I would like to once again thank Bob for his 18 years of service
in this
[[Page 22355]]
body and for his willingness to listen to and work with colleagues with
whom he hasn't always agreed. And I would like to once again wish Bob
and his family the very best as he leaves the Senate this January.
Blanche Lincoln
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from
Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, who, like me, will be leaving the U.S.
Senate in the coming weeks. I would like to take this moment to thank
Blanche for her service, and wish her, her husband Dr. Steve Lincoln
and her two twin boys Bennett and Reece, the very best as they embark
on the next chapter in their lives.
As a seventh generation Arkansan, Blanche has dedicated the better
part of her adult life to serving the people of Arkansas. She was
elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992. After two terms
representing Arkansas's first district she retired briefly to give
birth two her twin sons. However, the call of public service led her to
run for a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate and in 1998, at the age of 38,
the people of Arkansas elected her to serve them as their U.S. Senator
the youngest woman ever to be elected.
As a young woman growing up on her family farm in the small town of
Helena, AR, Blanche developed a strong appreciation and understanding
for American farmers and ranchers and the important work they do for
our country. She carried the lessons she learned, and the values they
instilled in her, with her to Congress. Throughout her career in public
service, Blanche has been particularly vocal on issues related to
agriculture, hunger, working families and children.
In 2009, Blanche became the first ever woman to chair the Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. She played the key role
in brokering the compromise that led to passage of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, otherwise known as the farm bill,
which reauthorizes U.S. agriculture policy every 5 years and is of
vital importance to farmers and food producers across the country.
Senator Lincoln and the Agriculture Committee also played a vital
role in shaping the derivatives provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street reform bill. These were difficult, highly complex matters, and
Senator Lincoln worked tirelessly to lead her committee throughout the
process. Her seriousness and hard work were a tremendous asset to the
overall process, and I commend her and her committee for helping to
shape the legislation.
In addition to her work on the Agriculture Committee, Blanche has
been focused on our country's children. She formed the Senate Caucus
for Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children and the Senate Hunger
Caucus. She recently worked to pass the child nutrition bill, which
will improve the lives of millions of children in our country.
After Blanche leaves the Senate, I believe she will be remembered as
a tireless public servant who was devoted first and foremost to
advancing the interests of the people of her beloved home State,
Arkansas.
Once again, I would like to thank Blanche for her years of service,
and wish her well as she leaves the Senate. It has truly been a
pleasure working with her over the years, and I firmly believe that
this body will not be the same without her.
Kit Bond
Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to pay
tribute to a longtime colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, who
like me will be leaving this body in a few short weeks. It has been an
honor to serve with him, and I wish him, his wife Linda, and his son
Samuel--who is bravely serving his Nation as a 1st lieutenant in the
U.S. Marine Corps and the rest of his family the best of luck in the
future.
Senator Bond, or ``Kit'' as many of us know him, knew at an early age
that his calling was public service. After earning his law degree and
practicing for a few years here in Washington, DC, he returned to
Missouri to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1968. While he
was unsuccessful in that first run, at the young age of 29 he caught
the eye of the then-Missouri Attorney General John Danforth, who hired
him as an assistant attorney general.
After heading the Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection,
Kit was elected in his own right to serve as Missouri's State Auditor,
and later went on to two terms as Governor of Missouri. He still holds
the distinction of having been the youngest Governor elected in his
State's history at the age of 33.
Kit was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986. During his time in this
body, he has established himself as a strong advocate for the people
and interests of the State of Missouri. He has also established himself
as a national leader on issues that are important not only to his State
but to our Nation as a whole.
For years, as a member and later chairman of the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee, he has served as a leading voice for small
businesses.
As the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
Senator Bond has worked continuously to ensure our Nation's
intelligence community has the tools and resources necessary to keep us
safe. Throughout his career in the Senate, he has also been a
knowledgeable, leading voice on matters of importance to veterans, and
has time and again proven his unwavering support for our men and women
in uniform.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, and chairman and ranking
member of the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, he has played a
significant role in advocating for improvements to our nation's roads
and other vital infrastructure.
These are just some of the areas which Senator Bond will no doubt be
remembered. But I would like to take a moment to speak to an issue
which he and I have worked together for many years, for which he may
not receive the attention he deserves--his strong advocacy for the
health of our nation's children and families.
Senator Bond and I have worked together on these issues for many
years. In 1991, his support was vital to gaining enactment of a piece
of legislation of which I am most proud--the Family and Medical Leave
Act. To date, this bill has been used more than 100 million times to
ensure that workers can care for ailing loved ones, or care for a new
child, without the fear of losing their job. This seems like common
sense now, but it took 7 years, and 2 Presidential vetoes to finally
see this important law enacted.
That wouldn't have happened without the involvement of Kit Bond.
He was also one of the key supporters of the successful effort in
2009 to ensure that airline workers have full access to their Family
and Medical Leave Act benefits.
Senator Bond and I have also partnered over the years to improve
maternal and child health and end preventable birth defects. I was
proud to be a cosponsor of the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1998,
which he authored. I was also honored to partner with him and others
again in 2003, when we were successful in passing the Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act. These measures helped to
establish, and then expand, the role of the Centers for Disease Control
in researching and developing solutions to the problems posed by birth
defects and developmental disabilities.
He was also a key Republican sponsor, along with Senator Hatch of
Utah, of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, which I authored in the
110th Congress. This legislation is the next step in our work together,
and seeks to educate every parent, and provide access for every
newborn, to a battery of life-saving prenatal tests. This landmark
legislation helps build on the successes which we have had on this
issue in the past, and I was pleased that Senator Bond was a supporter
yet again, as he has been throughout his career in the Senate.
While we did not always see eye-to-eye on every issue, Senator Bond
was always someone with whom those policy disagreements were never
personal. He has been an honorable legislator, and a valued colleague
during our time serving in the Senate together.
[[Page 22356]]
Once again, I would like to wish Senator Bond, his wife Linda, his
son Samuel and his family, and all their extended family the very best
in all their future endeavors.
Sam Brownback
I would like to say a few words in honor of Senator Sam Brownback, my
colleague from Kansas for these past 14 years. Like me, he will be
ending his service in the U.S. Senate at the conclusion of this
Congress. I would like to congratulate him on his election as Governor
of the State of Kansas, and I wish him and his family the very best in
his new endeavor.
His election to the governorship should come as no surprise--he has
proven time and again that his first priority is serving the people of
Kansas. He has a long track record of service, beginning with his 1986
election to the position of State Secretary of Agriculture. At the time
of his election, he was only 30 years old, the youngest person ever to
hold the position.
After serving as Agriculture Secretary, Sam was elected to the House
of Representatives as part of the famous Republican class of 1994. He
quickly ascended to the Senate in 1996 with the departure of a Senate
and Kansas legend, then-Majority Leader Bob Dole. Sam had some big
shoes to fill, and he has done so admirably.
Senator Brownback will be remembered for many things, his
conservatism and his passion to name a few, but perhaps the most
important is his dedication to his faith. His religious values provided
an anchor for everything he did, and led to his pursuit of issues that
provided assistance for those in need.
Senator Brownback's commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur is an
example of one of those issues. Tragically, more than 200,000 people
have died in Darfur and more than 2.5 million have been displaced as a
result of the unrest in Sudan. Senator Brownback's expertise and
dedication to this critically important issue has made a real impact on
the fight to end this horrific crisis. With his retirement, the Senate
will lose one of its great human rights champions.
Senator Brownback and I may not have always seen eye-to-eye, but no
one ever questioned his commitment to principle, or his commitment to
the people of Kansas.
I wish him, his wife Mary, and their five children all the best.
While the Senate will miss him, I wish him luck as he embarks on his
next journey as the Governor of Kansas.
James Bunning
Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words of farewell to my
colleague from Kentucky, Senator Jim Bunning. We will both be retiring
from this Chamber when this Congress concludes, and I wish him and his
wife Mary Catherine, their sons and daughters and the rest of their
family the very best in the future.
As we all know, prior to becoming a politician Jim Bunning was a
world-class baseball pitcher. He had a distinguished career primarily
with the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies, during which he
became the second pitcher in Major League history to record 1,000
strikeouts and 100 wins in both the American and National Leagues. He
was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996.
Of course, after such a distinguished career he could have simply
hung up his cleats, moved back to his home state of Kentucky, and
enjoyed a quiet retirement with his family.
Instead, he decided to take the work ethic and competitive spirit
that drove him in baseball and use his energy to give back to his
community as a public servant. In 1977, he ran for and won a city
council seat in Fort Thomas, KY. He was then elected to the Kentucky
State Senate in 1979. After serving in the State Senate as Republican
leader, he ran to represent Kentucky's 4th Congressional District in
1986. He also won that election, and served for 12 years in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
In 1998, Jim ran to replace Senator Wendell Ford, who was retiring.
He kept his winning streak alive, not only winning that initial Senate
contest, but also reelection in 2004. When he retires this year, Jim
Bunning will have amassed an impressive winning streak in politics,
just as he did in baseball.
As you know, life in the U.S. Senate is about working out
disagreements through deliberation and debate. This process of
lawmaking has served to ensure that the voices of a broad range of
Americans are heard as we work to craft the laws and policies we must
ultimately all abide by.
As a Senator, Jim Bunning has always stood up for his beliefs, and
fought for what he thought was right. As a member of the Senate
Banking, Budget, Energy, and Finance Committees, Senator Bunning has
been a staunchly conservative voice on economic policy.
While he and I seldom have seen eye to eye on these matters, his deep
convictions have given voice to the concerns of citizens who share his
point of view, and thereby have helped to shape and enrich our debates
on the important questions we have faced over the years.
I wish him further success in whatever endeavors he pursues, as well
as many happy, healthy years to come with his family.
Russ Feingold
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime colleague
and friend of mine, Senator Russ Feingold, who will be leaving the
Senate this January after 18 years of service. I would like to take
this opportunity to wish Russ and his family the very best as they
embark on this new chapter in their lives.
Born and raised in the city of Janesville, WI, Russ has dedicated the
better part of his career to serving the people of his home State.
Prior to his first election to the U.S. Senate in 1992, Russ served as
a Wisconsin State senator for nearly a decade. Throughout his career in
public service, Russ has proven to be a passionate and articulate
advocate for the people of Wisconsin and their needs.
Since he first entered the Senate, Russ has perhaps become best-known
as one of this body's most stalwart progressives. Indeed, on any number
of issues, from campaign finance reform, to the Iraq war, to our work
together during Senate consideration of legislation reauthorizing the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Russ has demonstrated a strong
commitment towards ensuring that respect for human rights, the rule of
law, and democracy remain cornerstones of American policy, both at home
and abroad.
Over the course of his three terms in the U.S. Senate, Russ has
perhaps become most closely identified in the minds of many Americans
with his work on campaign finance reform with Senator McCain. In 2002,
when the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill was being
considered, Russ took a very courageous position in pushing legislation
that, at the time, was relatively unpopular with some of our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle. I was proud to join those efforts as the
floor manager of McCain-Feingold, and would like to express my
gratitude to Russ for his strong and consistent leadership on that
issue.
I have long appreciated Russ's strong, principled stands on those
issues, and have welcomed the opportunity to work with him over the
years. I know that Russ's commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule
of law will be missed come January, and I would once again like to wish
him the best as he leaves this institution.
Byron Dorgan
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime colleague
and friend of mine Senator Byron Dorgan who will be retiring from the
U.S. Senate when the 112th Congress convenes in January. I would like
to take this moment to thank Byron for his service, and wish him, his
wife, Kim, and the rest of his wonderful family the very best as they
embark on this new chapter in their lives.
Byron has dedicated the better part of his adult life to serving the
people of his State. When he was just 26 years old, Byron became the
youngest constitutional officer in North Dakota history when he was
appointed to serve as the State's Tax Commissioner. In 1980, Byron once
again demonstrated his commitment to public service when he
[[Page 22357]]
was elected to the State's lone House seat. Twelve years later, after
six terms in the House, the people of North Dakota once again returned
Byron to Washington, this time as their U.S. Senator.
Throughout his career in public service, Byron has been particularly
vocal on issues related to U.S. agricultural policy. As a young man
growing up in the small town of Regent, ND, Byron developed a strong
appreciation for American farmers and ranchers and the important work
they do to keep our country fed. Indeed, Byron's own family worked in
the farm equipment business and raised cattle and horses. As a result,
he has been a consistent advocate for greater economic security and
opportunity in rural America.
Since 2005, Byron has also served as chairman of the Senate
Democratic Policy Committee, where he has played an important role in
helping to craft the Senate Democratic policy agenda over the last
several years. But after Byron leaves the Senate in just a few short
weeks, I believe he will be remembered as a public servant who was
devoted first and foremost to advancing the interests of the people of
his beloved home State, North Dakota.
Once again, I would like to thank Byron for his many years of
service, and wish him well as he leaves the Senate. It has truly been a
pleasure working with him over the years, and I firmly believe that
this body will not be the same without him.
Judd Gregg
Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to my colleague, a fellow
New Englander and Banking Committee member, the senior Senator from New
Hampshire, Judd Gregg.
It has been an honor and a pleasure serving with him in this body for
the past 18 years. As we both prepare to leave the Senate this year, I
would like to take this opportunity to wish him and his family the very
best in the future.
Throughout his tenure in the Senate, Senator Gregg has been an ardent
advocate for his home State of New Hampshire, and a knowledgeable
legislator. Time and again, during floor debate and committee
proceedings, he has demonstrated his sharp intellect and deep knowledge
of a broad range of issues--particularly on economic and budget policy.
He is a deeply committed public servant, who has been elected by the
people of New Hampshire to serve them for 9 years in the House of
Representatives, for 4 years as Governor, and as their U.S. Senator for
the last 18 years. In fact, they returned him to the Senate in 2004
with the highest number of votes in New Hampshire history. It is clear
that his constituents have a great deal of faith in this man, and
during his time in Congress, he has represented them and their values
extremely well.
As one would expect from a man of New Hampshire, Senator Gregg has
always demonstrated his independence, commitment to hard work, and
self-sufficiency. Yet he has also been someone that has sought
compromise and has been ready to collaborate with those willing to
tackle the difficult problems facing our Nation.
In 2001, he was one of the lead Republicans working on the No Child
Left Behind law to improve education across the Nation for generations
of Americans. In 2003, he and I worked together with Senator Ted
Kennedy, Senator Lamar Alexander, and Senator Susan Collins to craft
the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, which updated our nation's
laws to meet the serious problem of child abuse.
Of course, improving education and ending child abuse are issues on
which both liberals and conservatives broadly agree, so bipartisanship
and collaboration on these matters is easy.
Of course, in the fall of 2008, our Nation was faced with a nearly
unprecedented economic collapse--and the views of liberals and
conservatives on how to respond could charitably be described as
divergent, at best.
It was at that moment, when our Nation faced a calamity of historical
proportions, that Senator Gregg grit his teeth and set to work,
negotiating with me, Treasury Secretary Geithner, Federal Reserve
Chairman Bernanke, and others, to fashion a legislative response to the
crisis.
Despite the heavy criticism that came with being a party to those
discussions, he remained a key negotiator, and in the end, the House
and Senate approved the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Today,
our economy, though far from recovered, is far better off than it would
have been without this bill and many of the institutions which received
assistance have repaid the Treasury with interest.
Let me be clear that was a bill that none of us ever, in our wildest
dreams thought we would have to write, or vote to pass. However
distasteful, it would have been wrong to allow our financial system to
go into full cardiac arrest, with little chance of survival.
The politically expedient route to take would have been to walk away,
vote against the bill, and join the pundits, commentators, and bloggers
who've said ``It never should have passed, and we would have been fine
without it anyway.''
But that wouldn't be leadership. That wouldn't be statesmanship. And
that isn't the type of legislator that Judd Gregg is.
I would also like to thank Senator Gregg for his work as a member of
the Banking Committee. He joined the committee late in his tenure, but
his deep knowledge of the economy and expertise in financial matters
was greatly appreciated. He played an important role in helping to
craft what became the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.
Though he was a staunch opponent of some of the bill's provisions, he
didn't see that opposition as an impediment to continuing to offer
ideas and thoughtful debate in order to shape the legislation into what
he thought was a better product.
Yet, as fierce a partisan as Senator Gregg is, he is also a
consummate legislator. He knows that the people of New Hampshire sent
him here to work hard, and work with the other members of this body. He
has shown that at the end of the day, even if you work hard on
something, you may not be able to support it--but you will know that
you have done your best to advocate for your positions and shape the
debate.
The Senate will miss his knowledge and work ethic, and I hope that
newly elected members--of both parties--will follow his example.
I wish him, his wife Kathleen, his children and granddaughter the
very best.
George LeMieux
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague, the
Senator from Florida, George LeMieux, who will be leaving the U.S.
Senate before the 112th Congress convenes. I would like to take this
moment to thank George for his service, and wish him, his wife Meike,
and their four children the very best as they embark on the next
chapter of their lives.
George is a native Floridian who has served as deputy attorney
general, and later as Governor Charlie Crist's chief of staff.
When Senator Mel Martinez retired in 2009, George was appointed to
fulfill the remainder of the term. Since then he has worked to help the
people of Florida through his work as a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Special Committee
on Aging.
Though he has only been in the Senate for a short time, Senator
LeMieux has been an engaged and hard-working Member of this body. He
has emerged as a strong advocate for solving our long-term Federal debt
concerns, and a devoted advocate for the people and businesses of his
home State of Florida.
While we did not share the same views on a number of issues, Senator
LeMieux proved that he was a man of deep conviction who was not afraid
to stand up for what he believed. He spoke often on the floor to
advocate for his positions. However, he showed that he was a serious
legislator, and leader, on issues of vital importance to our Nation.
For example, he was the lone Republican to cast a vote in favor of
the Small Business Jobs Act. This legislation was designed to expand
access to
[[Page 22358]]
credit, and provide tax incentives, for small businesses. George
recognized that these were two things that Florida's businesses
desperately needed--much more than partisan gridlock.
After George leaves the Senate in just a few short weeks, I believe
he will be remembered as a public servant who was devoted first and
foremost to advancing the interests of the people of his home State,
Florida.
Once again, I would like to thank George for his service, and wish
him well as he leaves the Senate. It has been a pleasure working with
him.
Arlen Specter
Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend and longtime
colleague, Senator Arlen Specter, the longest serving U.S. Senator in
Pennsylvania history.
As many of you know, Arlen and I were freshmen Senators together 30
years ago. I was the only Democrat newly elected to the Senate in 1980.
Senator Specter was one of 12 new Republicans elected that year, in the
so-called ``Reagan Landslide,'' that gave his party the Senate for the
first time in 28 years.
I bring this up because, even though I was a new Senator in the
minority, we quickly began working on a bipartisan basis. For those
listening today, the idea of a bipartisan Senate may seem strange. Back
then, it was commonplace and I know that Arlen and I both hope that
newly elected Members of this body will revive this tradition in the
coming years.
Early in our Senate careers, Arlen and I started the Senate
Children's Caucus. We believed that as the largest nonvoting
constituency in the country, children had the greatest need for
champions to advocate on their behalf. The Children's Caucus has
provided strong leadership on early childhood education, funding for
childcare programs, and making passage of the Family Medical Leave Act
reality. I want to thank Senator Specter for being one of my partners
on these critically important issues for almost 30 years.
Senator Specter's accomplishments carry beyond his defense of
children. Over the course of his career, he has served as the chairman
of three important and influential Senate committees: the Select
Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the
Committee on the Judiciary. In each of these capacities he has worked
to ensure that America's legal system is true to our best traditions
and ideals, while ensuring that we have the tools to prevent terrorism
and protect our citizens. He has also used his role on the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education to increase research funding for the National Institutes of
Health. His work here in the United States Senate has improved the
lives of countless Pennsylvanians and countless Americans.
Of all of Senator Specter's achievements, I have yet to mention the
most impressive: Since 2005, he has continued to serve while fighting
Hodgkin's lymphoma. Twice since being diagnosed, Arlen has undergone
chemotherapy for the disease. Yet he continued serving the people of
Pennsylvania.
I have worked with Senator Specter both as a Democrat and a
Republican, and I can tell you this his commitment to bipartisanship
and independence should be a model for all current and future Members
of the U.S. Senate.
I would like to thank Arlen for his many years of service, and wish
him and his wife Joan well as he leaves the Senate. It has truly been a
pleasure working with him over the years. I know the State of
Pennsylvania will miss their senior Senator and I firmly believe that
this body will not be the same without him.
George Voinovich
I rise today to honor Senator George Voinovich, my colleague from
Ohio who has served with me in this body for 12 years. Senator
Voinovich has had a distinguished career in Ohio politics, spanning
every level of government. His work as a public servant began when he
was a bright young assistant attorney general, and has taken him
through the Ohio House of Representatives, the mayor's office in
Cleveland, the Ohio Governor's Mansion and the U.S. Senate.
Not only will Senator Voinovich be remembered for the more than four
decades of service to his fellow Ohioans but also for his
bipartisanship. He was never afraid to put his beliefs ahead of party,
opposing President Bush's $750 million tax cut proposal in 2003 for
example.
I was especially proud to work with Senator Voinovich on legislation
to help ensure the United States' continued dominance in the world
aeronautics industry. Our bill, the Aeronautics Competitiveness Act of
2007, increased research funding, technology transfer, and workforce
development, all of which are vital to maintaining the United States'
competitive edge. I was also proud to have served on the Foreign
Relations committee with him for 5 years, working to strengthen the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.
Senator Voinovich was known as the resident Senate ``debt hawk'' and
has long stood for fiscal responsibility at the local, State and
Federal levels.
It has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Voinovich. As we depart
the Senate, I know this body will miss the presence of one of its more
esteemed members and the people of Ohio will miss one of their most
dedicated servants. I wish him and his wife Janet many more years of
happiness.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a number of
our friends and colleagues who are ending their service in the Senate.
Their contributions are too numerous to mention, therefore I would like
to take just a few minutes to highlight some of the memories of the
Senators I came to know personally.
Some of the departing Senators I have served with for decades. Others
were here for only part of a term. All of them worked hard for their
constituents and our country.
Ted Kaufman
Senator Ted Kaufman served for the past 2 years on my Senate
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
Throughout Senator Kaufman's time with the subcommittee, he made a
remarkable effort to honor the critical work of Federal employees. His
regular statements on the Senate floor highlighting their work were an
inspiration and I know were greatly appreciated by the dedicated
Federal employees in Delaware and across this great Nation. I also
appreciated Senator Kaufman's strong leadership on addressing
longstanding shortcomings in Presidential transition planning,
culminating in the enactment of the Pre-Election Presidential
Transition Act this year.
Roland Burris
Senator Roland Burris served on the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, which I have the honor of chairing. Throughout his months with
the Committee, he made time in his busy schedule to attend and
participate in numerous committee hearings and meetings. His
participation played an important part in the committee's ability to
conduct oversight and, ultimately, to improve benefits and care for our
Nation's veterans. Senator Burris's work on the committee was a great
service to the men and women of Illinois who wore the Nation's
uniforms, as well as to servicemembers, veterans, and their families
nationwide.
Carte Goodwin
Senator Carte Goodwin handled a tough assignment and filled in like
an experienced professional. He is a gentleman who knows about and
cares for West Virginia deeply, so much so that he moved to Washington
to serve and advocate for his State in an emergency situation. Senator
Goodwin was friendly and cordial and made himself as helpful as
possible during his short tenure.
Blanche Lincoln
My good friend Senator Blanche Lincoln was a passionate advocate for
Arkansas throughout her Senate service. She is recognized as a fighter
who speaks her mind. She cares deeply about American families. She
worked hard on her committee assignments. She has been a champion for
farmers, veterans, seniors, and Americans of all
[[Page 22359]]
stripes. She can be proud of her service. I thank her for her
contributions to this institution and her friendship.
Evan Bayh
Senator Evan Bayh served with me on the Committees on Armed Services
and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. He showed his commitment to
our national security when he took over the Armed Services Readiness
Subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress. He was a strong
moderate voice for the people of Indiana.
Arlen Specter
I served with Senator Arlen Specter for many years on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee. He twice served as the committee's chairman, and, in
recent years as I chaired the committee, he remained a strong and vital
force working on behalf of our Nation's veterans, on both sides of the
dais. He has been an institution in the Senate for many years, and it
has been a genuine pleasure working with him. I appreciate and applaud
his long, dedicated service to those who have worn our Nation's
uniforms.
Sam Brownback
I will miss my good friend Senator Sam Brownback. Despite sitting
across the aisle from me, he was always approachable and friendly. I
know him to be committed to helping people in Kansas and across the
country. He felt so strongly about ending homelessness that I remember
him spending the night on the street with a group of homeless people to
experience first hand the obstacles they face. That is dedication. He
cares about people. Senator Brownback should feel proud about all that
he has accomplished to make life better for people in our country.
Russ feingold
I want to thank Senator Russ Feingold for his 18 years of service in
the U.S. Senate and his time in public service before that. Senator
Feingold has worked with me as an outspoken advocate for so many of the
issues that I hold dear, such as protecting Americans' personal privacy
and good government.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there was
a rush of strong executive branch moves for authority. Senator Feingold
repeatedly joined me and other Members in ensuring civil liberties and
privacy protections of all Americans were observed. He was a leader in
protecting liberties during debate over reforming the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. When the Department of Homeland Security
was established, we worked to ensure that it had a strong official
dedicated to protecting privacy. In 2007 I authored the POWER Act,
which provided the Homeland Security Chief Privacy Officer with
additional powers, and Senator Feingold was a strong supporter,
cosponsoring that bill which then became law in 2008.
I must also mention how proud I was to support Senator Feingold on
perhaps his most lasting accomplishment--campaign finance reform. The
election process can be opaque, and it is full of more money than ever.
However, in the last decade, many of the new campaign finance rules
championed by Senator Feingold have curbed many abuses which used to be
common. While much work is left to be done in this area, especially
with the recent Citizens United ruling, this country and voters owe a
tremendous thank-you to Senator Feingold.
Byron Dorgan
It has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Byron Dorgan of North
Dakota, and I will miss him greatly. I have had the honor to work
alongside Senator Dorgan on two committees of great importance to both
of our States, the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Senator Dorgan and I served on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
together beginning in the 104th Congress. During his tenure as chairman
during the last 4 years, I saw firsthand the leadership skills and
compassion he possesses. Chairman Dorgan has shown his dedication to
all of our Nation's indigenous people: American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Thank you Senator Dorgan for your
efforts to improve the quality of life for America's native people.
I am grateful that Chairman Dorgan has been a strong ally to Hawaii's
indigenous people, the Native Hawaiian people. He has stood with
Senator Daniel Inouye and me as we have worked to have the United
States fulfill its obligations to all of its Native people, including
Native Hawaiians. Mahalo, Chairman Dorgan, for your aloha to the people
of Hawaii.
Senator Dorgan is a great statesman and a gentleman who has served
the people of North Dakota in the U.S. Congress for three decades.
During our combined service on the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, I repeatedly saw Senator Dorgan's passion for the people of
North Dakota as he worked to make his State a pioneer in renewable
energy efforts. For those of us who serve in the Senate, we work
tirelessly to advance the needs of not only our home States, but the
whole Nation. Senator Dorgan has proven himself both a great North
Dakotan and a great American.
The Senate will be a much different place without his leadership, and
I know that I am joined by many of my colleagues in wishing him many
successes in the future. Many of my constituents in Hawaii will miss
his leadership just as his own constituents in North Dakota will.
Mahalo for your friendship and for your service to our Nation. On
behalf of Millie and our family, I send our aloha to you and Kim and
your family. We wish you the best as you begin a new chapter in your
lives.
Chris Dodd
I am proud to express my great appreciation and gratitude for Senator
Chris Dodd's service to our country. He brought extraordinary
leadership to the Senate that enabled us to make meaningful
improvements to the education and economic security of Americans.
I traveled with Senator Dodd to South America early in my tenure here
in the Senate. Although I enjoy traveling, each time I go abroad I
worry about my ability to communicate with my foreign hosts. But, on
that trip, the language barrier was not an issue because, as I quickly
found out, Senator Dodd is fluent in Spanish.
Senator Dodd recognizes the importance of language skills and
cultural knowledge, not only to survive in the world but to prosper in
it. I have truly appreciated his great respect for other cultures and
passion for learning. Senator Dodd has lent tremendous support to my
national foreign language coordination bill, which aims to equip
Americans with foreign language skills and knowledge of other cultures.
It is just one example of Senator Dodd's outstanding work to provide
our children with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve
prosperity and economic security.
I would also like to thank Senator Dodd for his leadership in the
111th Congress. We are making historic and substantial improvements to
the health care delivery system and the regulation of our financial
system, and neither would have been possible without Senator Dodd's
guidance, persistence, good judgment, and support.
Senator Dodd has been selfless and generous in his efforts to
increase access to health care services everywhere in our country,
including Hawaii. I am grateful that Senator Dodd has always recognized
the unique health care needs and challenges of my home State. His
contributions have been vital to the protection of Hawaii's system of
employer-provided health insurance and ensuring that health care
providers in Hawaii are more capable of meeting the uncompensated costs
of providing care for the poor and uninsured.
I am proud to have served alongside Chairman Dodd on the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where he has been a
tireless leader and an outstanding consumer advocate. The Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act rightfully bears his
name because no one has done more to educate, protect, and empower
consumers and investors. Through his support, the act makes significant
investments in financial literacy and education, and it
[[Page 22360]]
provides meaningful disclosures and protections that will allow
consumers to make better financial decisions. Americans are now better
protected against abusive, predatory, and anticonsumer business
practices than they were because of Senator Dodd's unmatched
contributions. Senator Dodd is a great champion of consumers,
investors, and financial literacy, and I am honored and humbled to have
had the opportunity to work together with him on the Banking Committee.
Since I joined the Senate 20 years ago, Senator Dodd has been a great
colleague and ally. More importantly, he is kind, generous,
trustworthy, and a loving family man, and I am proud to call him my
brother and my friend. Although I am saddened to bid him farewell
today, I wish Senator Dodd well in all of his future endeavors.
Before I close, I would also like to thank and applaud Senator Dodd's
family Jackie, Grace, and Christina. They have been a source of
strength, happiness, and calm for their husband and father.
Mahalo nui loa, Chris, for your service and friendship. Millie and I
send our warmest aloha to you and your family, and we wish you well as
you begin this new chapter of your lives together.
George Voinovich
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my dear friend and brother,
Senator George Voinovich, as he prepares to retire from public life
after more than 40 years of dedicated public service.
Senator Voinovich's retirement is a sad occasion for me, and it is
difficult to put into words what Senator Voinovich's friendship has
meant to me over the years. Senator Voinovich and I have worked so well
together on the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for
many years, where we have both had the honor of serving as chairman. It
has truly been a pleasure to serve with him as we have addressed so
many difficult government management issues.
Senator Voinovich's background as the Governor of Ohio and the mayor
of the city of Cleveland provided him with a unique perspective on the
Federal Government's management and workforce challenges, and I believe
his vast experience made our subcommittee more effective. On a light
note, I know that one of Senator Voinovich's proudest moments as
Governor was watching his beloved Cleveland baseball team reach the
World Series for the first time in over 40 years. I am sure that
Senator Voinovich will enjoy having more time to spend in his hometown
of Cleveland during his retirement.
Senator Voinovich can take his grandchildren to see parks, buildings,
and other improvements he helped bring about in Ohio during his time as
mayor and Governor, but there are few similar opportunities in Federal
Government oversight and management. The tough management issues we
have tackled seldom make front-page news. But that is what makes
Senator Voinovich remarkable he chose to focus on the details of the
government's toughest management challenges rather than more glamorous
issues.
Like me, Senator Voinovich has always recognized that the Federal
Government's most valuable resource is its workforce of dedicated men
and women. I often refer to him as the ``father of human capital.'' We
have worked closely together on a large number of workforce
initiatives, with the common goal of making the Federal Government the
employer of choice in this country. I am especially proud of our work
to reform the broken Federal hiring process. I will keep fighting in
Congress for our bill--the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act, S.
736. In the meantime, I am pleased that our joint oversight on this
issue has spurred considerable progress in the executive branch.
Senator Voinovich and I also worked together on an amendment to last
year's National Defense Authorization Act, which included my Non-
Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act, along with several other
Federal workforce provisions. I cannot overstate how much Senator
Voinovich's support for providing retirement equity has meant to the
thousands of Federal employees in my home State of Hawaii.
Senator Voinovich simply has too many Federal workforce
accomplishments to discuss all of them today. However, I would like to
point out that he authored the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act to
modernize Federal human capital planning, pay, and benefits; the
Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act; the Senior Executive
Service Performance Improvement Act; and many other important bills
that have improved the government's ability to provide services.
In addition to his focus on important workforce issues, Senator
Voinovich has worked tirelessly on complicated management challenges.
Our subcommittee has held a total of seven hearings on reforming the
security clearance process. This work has been a tremendous success,
eliminating the clearance backlog, dramatically reducing processing
times, and improving investigation quality. These improvements enhance
our national security and help the Federal Government hire the right
people for the right jobs.
I am also proud of our work together in establishing Chief Management
Officers at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland
Security. It is vital that we maintain strong focus on management at
these critical departments. I could easily point to so many other
things that Senator Voinovich has accomplished during his Senate
service.
I want to express my deep appreciation to Senator Voinovich for his
friendship and partnership over the years. He has been a model public
servant, and our country is a better and safer place because of his
work. I wish Senator Voinovich, his lovely wife Janet, and his entire
family joy and happiness during his richly deserved retirement.
In closing, the end of this Congress is bittersweet, with so many
talented and dedicated public servants leaving this institution. All of
them made a lasting impact on the Senate and on our country. Mahalo nui
loa, thank you, for all your work.
Jim Bunning
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my
colleague, Senator Jim Bunning. After 12 years in the U.S. Senate,
Senator Bunning is retiring from this chamber at the end of this
session.
Jim has led a remarkable life. As a baseball fan, I am especially
envious of his first career as a Major League pitcher. He was a
classic, hard-nosed competitor, which foreshadowed his style as a
public servant later in life. My favorite story about Senator Bunning's
baseball career is that he was the only pitcher to strike out Ted
Williams three times in a single game. He is also one of only seven
pitchers to throw a perfect game and a no-hitter. Senator Bunning
retired from the sport in 1971 with 2,855 career strikeouts, which, at
the time, was the second highest total of all-time. He was rightfully
inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1996.
Following his outstanding baseball career, Jim went into politics.
And, once again, he was a winner. He has held office at the local,
State, and Federal level. After serving Kentucky's 4th District for 12
years in the House of Representatives, Senator Bunning began his
service in this Chamber in 1999. I have served with him on the Budget
and Finance committees, and have always known him to freely speak his
mind and ask tough questions. He remained true to the fierce style he
first demonstrated as a young pitcher who was not afraid to brush back
a hitter.
Nor was Senator Bunning intimidated by the often arcane and technical
issues we confronted as members of the Finance Committee. Over the
years we have served there as colleagues, we have worked productively
on a wide range of legislative proposals that included the taxation of
life insurance companies, shortening the depreciation period for farm
equipment, and capital gains treatment for songwriters, just to name a
few. He was always willing to reach across the aisle to help
[[Page 22361]]
achieve a common objective a longstanding Finance Committee tradition.
Senator Bunning will now enter a new phase in his life, and I am
certain he will now have the luxury of spending time with his wonderful
family. Jim has the good fortune of being married to his childhood
sweetheart, Mary. They met in grade school, and I am impressed that Jim
knew at such a young age that he found a truly special person. I find
Mary to be an absolutely lovely woman and admire their lasting love for
each other. Mary is the mother of their nine children, and Jim and Mary
now share 40 grandchildren. I wish Jim, Mary, and their entire family
many years of health and happiness.
BLANCHE LINCOLN
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize one of our
departing colleagues, the senior Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Blanche
Lambert Lincoln.
A 7th generation Arkansan and a native of Helena, AR, Senator Lincoln
grew up on a cotton and rice farm. She spoke often of her experiences
on the farm, and fondly recalled how she was a farmer's daughter. It
was her experience helping her father work the land that taught her the
same core values she brought to the Senate--honesty, fairness, hard
work, and common sense.
Senator Lincoln is the kind of colleague you want to have in the
Senate. She is pragmatic. She is rational. And she is reasonable. If
you ever had an issue with her you needed to resolve, you could count
on her to be someone you could work with. In fact, she is well known as
someone who tried to bridge the partisan divide. She even cofounded and
cochaired an organization dedicated to working across the aisle to
bridge differences and create practical solutions.
Senator Lincoln first came to Congress in 1992 as a Representative
for Arkansas's First Congressional District, serving two terms.
Following the birth of her twin boys, Reece and Bennett, she made a
successful run for the Senate in 1998.
During her time here in the Senate, she served her home State of
Arkansas with great distinction, serving in the same seat as the late
Senator Hattie Caraway, the first woman ever elected to the Senate.
Like Senator Caraway, who also made history for being the first woman
ever to be chairman of a Senate committee, Senator Lincoln made history
in 2009 by becoming the first woman in the 184-year history of the
Senate Agriculture Committee to be named chairman.
Senator Lincoln and I were able to collaborate on many issues during
her time in the Senate because we served together on two committees--
Agriculture and Finance. On the Agriculture Committee, she was a fierce
advocate for her State's agriculture interests, particularly rice and
cotton producers. Since farm bills tend to be more regional than party
driven, she always represented her producers with vigor. She was a key
player in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, both of which have been widely
popular throughout the countryside in the North and the South.
She also looked out for those who are less fortunate, making hunger
in our country a signature issue of hers. This year she pushed through
the Senate a landmark bill to improve school lunch programs. The child
nutrition reauthorization bill she authored contains almost 10 times
more new funding than the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization. It
includes $3.2B for the first school lunch program base-level
reimbursement increase since 1973. I hope the House will follow the
Senate's lead and pass this important bill yet this year.
She also served as the chair of Rural Outreach for the Senate
Democratic Caucus. It was in this role that we collaborated to
introduce the Rural Revitalization Act, a bill to boost the economy in
rural America in the wake of the recent recession. This bill made
significant investments in rural development priorities, including
infrastructure projects, energy programs, housing assistance and rural
health care.
Senator Lincoln also has been a champion for rural health care issues
as a valued member of the Senate Rural Health Caucus. During her time
in the Senate, she successfully fought to protect small businesses,
health care providers, and, most importantly, seniors in rural
communities. Because of Senator Lincoln's dedication, critical
improvements to the Medicare Program were enacted into law. In
particular, senior women now have improved access to bone density
tests, osteoporosis screenings, and other preventive services.
Senator Lincoln also authored the Elder Justice Act, legislation
enacted into law this year which authorizes new efforts to prevent,
detect, treat, and prosecute elder abuse and exploitation. Her work as
a lead author of the SHOP Act led to the adoption of tax credits and
small business health insurance exchanges in health reform. These
legislative accomplishments and many others will leave this country
with a lasting legacy of Senator Lincoln's commitment to improving the
health of Arkansans and of all Americans.
On the Finance Committee, Senator Lincoln was a strong and effective
advocate for working families. She worked hard to make sure that the
full child tax credit was available to as many low-earning workers with
children as possible. She knows how valuable that benefit is for
parents who really have to struggle to support their families.
Senator Lincoln and I share a commitment to promoting savings for
retirement. She shares my concern that retirement income security is a
growing challenge for the baby boomers who are beginning to head into
retirement right now as well as the generations that are following. An
important focus for her has been the promotion of employee stock
ownership plans, which not only help small businesses--including many
successful ones in my State of North Dakota--to grow but also help the
employee-owners build a separate pool of retirement savings that they
can use during their retirement years.
It is unfortunate that we are losing such a capable and pragmatic
colleague as Senator Lincoln. It will be sad to see the Senate without
her next year, but I know nothing but good things await her in her
future. I wish her the best.
Russ Feingold
I would like to pay tribute and recognize the accomplishments of my
good friend Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who will be leaving the
Senate at the end of this session.
Senator Feingold has faithfully served the people of Wisconsin for
the last 28 years, serving three terms in the Wisconsin State Senate
and three terms in the U.S. Senate. During all of that time, he has
never forgotten who put him in office. Every year, Senator Feingold has
held listening sessions in all 72 counties of Wisconsin. The input he
received in those sessions was his guide for every issue he worked on
in the Senate.
Russ Feingold has also been guided by his tremendous intellect. After
growing up in Janesville, WI, he graduated from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and went on to receive a Rhodes Scholarship from
Oxford University and a law degree from Harvard Law School.
To say that Senator Feingold has been independent-minded in the
Senate is an understatement. He has been a true maverick. He never let
party or political pressure influence his efforts here.
The clearest example of this was his work on campaign finance reform
with Republican Senator John McCain. After years of struggle, the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known to most as the McCain-Feingold
Act, was enacted in 2002. Although the Act continues to evolve and face
challenges, it will forever change the landscape of political campaigns
in this country. And Senator Feingold has led other efforts to promote
clean government, such as moving to electronic filing of campaign
finance reports and fighting against lobbyists' gifts to lawmakers.
Senator Feingold has also been an independent voice in the area of
foreign policy. He spoke out eloquently against the Iraq war and was
one of 21 Democratic Senators to vote against
[[Page 22362]]
the Iraq war resolution. And, as a member of the Intelligence Committee
and chairman of the Foreign Relations Africa Subcommittee, his opinion
on matters related to Africa have carried an added weight.
Of course, I have known Senator Feingold best from his work with me
on the Senate Budget Committee. Since he joined the panel in 1997, he
has been a powerful voice on the committee for fiscal responsibility.
He was one of the leading advocates for restoring the paygo, or pay-as-
you-go, requirement to ensure any new mandatory spending or tax cuts
are fully paid for. And, in 2009, he introduced a comprehensive Control
Spending Now Act, including several important spending reforms that
have since been adopted.
It has been a true honor to serve alongside Senator Russ Feingold. He
has made a tremendous contribution to this body, to his State of
Wisconsin, and to our Nation. He will certainly be missed. I wish him
all the best in his future endeavors.
Kit Bond
Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in paying tribute to
Senator Bond as he prepares to leave the Senate.
Senator Bond and I came to the Senate together in 1987. While we have
not seen eye to eye on some issues, I have admired his passion and
convictions as he worked to faithfully represent his State.
Even before coming to the Senate, Senator Bond had a distinguished
career in public service for the State of Missouri serving as assistant
attorney general, State auditor, and later as Governor. He cares deeply
about his home State, which is evidenced by his long list of
accomplishments in the Senate--a robust highway bill, targeted
investments in public housing and infrastructure, and a strong national
defense to name just a few.
Senator Bond and I have long shared a common interest in the Missouri
River. Though we disagree on how it should be managed and the ability
of our State's to utilize this resource, I have enormous respect for my
colleague for his passion in defending Missouri's claims to this
resource.
In particular, I deeply appreciated Senator Bond's work with me on
the Dakota Water Resources Act. This legislation was critical for the
economic future of North Dakota. During discussions on the bill, he was
a tenacious advocate for his State's interests. His diligence in
representing his State, coupled with his willingness to gain a better
understanding of the water needs of my State, ultimately helped us
reach a compromise acceptable to both States. The people of Missouri
can be proud of his work fighting for their interests.
Senator Bond has been a man of his word who served his State and
country with distinction. I wish him well in his future endeavors.
George Voinovich
Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize our
retiring colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich.
George Voinovich has led a remarkable life of public service,
stretching across all levels of government. Beginning in 1963, Senator
Voinovich has made the people of Ohio his priority, serving as an
assistant attorney general in Ohio, a member of the Ohio House of
Representatives, Cuyahoga County commissioner, Lieutenant Governor of
OH, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and finally, U.S. Senator.
Throughout his career, Senator Voinovich has been a steady hand,
guiding Ohio through difficult times. As mayor, he led the city of
Cleveland out of bankruptcy and mismanagement through smart budgeting
and pragmatic governing. As Governor, he led Ohio out of a recession
and into more prosperous times, holding the State budget's growth to
its lowest level in 30 years and overseeing the state's lowest
unemployment rate in 25 years.
As Senator, he continued his commitment to fiscal responsibility,
focusing on this country's exploding debt and long-term challenges.
Senator Voinovich also fought for reform of our tax and entitlement
systems as author of the SAFE Commission Act and cosponsor of the
Conrad-Gregg Bipartisan Task Force for Fiscal Responsibility Act.
Warning about our Nation's fiscal crisis at a Budget Committee hearing
in 2009, he testified courageously: ``We must find a compromise and we
must act now. Many people believe that this generation of Americans
will be the first whose standard of living will be less than those
before them. Our failure to act now will guarantee that they are
right.'' With Senator Voinovich's retirement, the Senate is losing one
of its strongest and clearest voices on the importance of fiscal
responsibility today to keep our country strong and growing into the
future.
I was also pleased to join with Senator Voinovich in introducing the
Truth in Budgeting Act. Our bill would have put a stop to the fiscally
reckless practice of using trust fund surpluses to pay for tax cuts and
other spending priorities. Senator Voinovich always recognized that our
current fiscal policies are putting future generations in the position
of having to borrow trillions of dollars to make good on our Social
Security, Medicare and other commitments.
I have always respected his commitment to principle and his
willingness to take independent positions, regardless of popularity or
political expedience. He has rejected the knee-jerk partisan politics
that unfortunately have taken hold of Washington over the past decade,
opting instead for reasonable, level-headed discourse. Always willing
to reach across the aisle, Senator Voinovich has spent his 12 years in
the Senate being an honest broker and a true public servant. He will be
greatly missed.
I wish a happy and healthy retirement to George and his wife of 47
years, Janet, and congratulate him on an outstanding career.
judd gregg
Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to pay tribute to
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who will be leaving the Senate at
the end of this session.
Although I am happy for Judd and his wife Kathy, as they set off on
the next stage of their lives, Judd's retirement represents a great
loss for the U.S. Senate, for the people of New Hampshire, for the
entire Nation, and for me personally.
Simply put, Judd has been an outstanding public servant. He has
worked tirelessly and effectively on behalf of his State, first as a
Congressman, then as Governor, and then as a Senator. The people of New
Hampshire rewarded his faithful service by repeatedly electing him by
wide margins. When he was reelected to the Senate in 2004, Judd
received the highest number of votes in New Hampshire history.
Judd has been a true leader in the Senate. Few Members have the
breadth of knowledge and insight that he holds on the key issues that
come before this body. Whether it be the budget, education policy, or
banking reform, he has been at the center of the debate, and Members on
both sides of the aisle seek out and respect his judgment.
I have come to know Judd best for his work on the Budget Committee.
He has been on the committee for all of the 18 years he has been in the
Senate. He served as chairman in 2005 and 2006, after Senator Nickles
retired, and has been the ranking member ever since.
I could not have asked for a better partner on the committee. It has
been a pleasure to work closely with him. Our staffs have also worked
very well together, which is a testament to the leadership of Judd and
the example he set in his work with me.
And Judd has tremendous integrity. His word is his bond.
Although we haven't always agreed on policy, Judd has always upheld
the highest standards of the Senate by knowing how to disagree without
being disagreeable. We have had fierce debates over the years, but we
have never let that affect our ability to work together.
Of course, the highlight of our work together came in our legislative
effort to adopt a bipartisan fiscal task force to address the country's
long-term debt crisis. That joint effort was truly one of the most
rewarding experiences of my career in the Senate. I will never
[[Page 22363]]
forget the days we spent discussing the proposal during a trip in 2006.
While we were not able to pass our legislation in the Senate, our
effort resulted in the creation of the President's fiscal commission.
It has been an honor to work alongside Judd in this fight. Like me,
Judd cares deeply about our nation's fiscal future and understands the
danger of rising Federal debt. He has been a tenacious advocate of
fiscal discipline and putting the budget on a sustainable long-term
path.
Judd is a true-blue fiscal conservative. But that has never stopped
him from reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. In addition
to working with me, Judd teamed up with Senator Ted Kennedy in 2001 to
co-author the No Child Left Behind Act. More recently, he teamed up
with Senator Wyden to write the first major bipartisan tax reform
legislation in decades, the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification
Act.
Notably, Judd also played a key role in the bipartisan negotiations
that led to the creation of the TARP legislation. TARP was widely
criticized during this past election season, but the results are now
in, and it is clear that the TARP program was successful in stabilizing
the financial sector and helping to prevent the economy from dipping
into a full-blown depression. The success of the program and the
repayments now coming into the Treasury can be attributed, at least in
part, to Judd's insistence on including provisions in the legislation
to protect American taxpayers.
Finally, Judd's retirement means more to me than just losing a great
partner on the Budget Committee. I am also losing a great friend. At a
time when Washington is filled with so much partisan rancor and
disagreement, we need more individuals from across the aisle to form
friendships like ours.
Judd, I wish you all the best in your retirement. You will truly be
missed.
Bob Bennett
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in appreciation and
admiration of Senator Bob Bennett.
Senator Bennett understood the perspectives of America's small
business owners. After all, he was one of them. As CEO of Franklin
Quest, Bob grew the company from 4 employees to over 1,000. During his
tenure the firm became one of the best known providers of time
management seminars and products, and became listed on the New York
Stock Exchange.
Reducing obstacles for small business owners has been one of Senator
Bennett's top priorities in Washington. In his first 6 months of
service, he took to the floor to identify three ways the Federal
Government was growing at the expense of the entrepreneur. Those three
obstacles--increased regulation, increased taxation, and increased
difficulty in capital formation--remain challenges to job creators
today, and Bob has never stopped voicing their concerns.
Senator Bennett was elected to the U.S. Senate from his beloved State
of Utah, which his father, Senator Wallace Bennett, represented for
many years. And by the time I was elected to the Chamber, Senator
Bennett had already been one of the ``wise ones'' in his own right for
many years. I have long admired Bob's sincere appreciation and respect
for the traditions and history of the Senate--to which he and his
father have both contributed tremendously.
Throughout his service here in Washington, Bob's family has helped
keep him grounded--all 6 children and 20 grandchildren. Sandy and I
wish the best for Bob and his wife Joyce.
Sam Brownback
Mr. President, I join my colleagues in appreciation and admiration of
Senator Sam Brownback.
Sam's commitment to public service grew out of the farmlands where he
was raised and where his parents still reside. As a student, Sam earned
the respect of his peers as State president of the Future Farmers of
America and student body president at Kansas State University. The
people of Kansas have put their trust in Sam multiple times: as their
Secretary of Agriculture, as one of their members in the House of
Representatives, and for 14 years in the U.S. Senate.
Sam drew upon his experience in Kansas to shape legislation here in
Washington. He offered legislation to create more opportunity for
America's farmers, and to reduce foreign trade barriers to their
products. In time Sam rose to become a leader on the Senate
Appropriations Committee, as well as the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
Sam also has a heart for victims of disease and human rights
violations all over the world. He proposed incentives for drug
companies to offer discounts for life-savings medications for people of
developing nations. He boldly called for the end to human rights
violations in Darfur and Iran. I have been proud to stand with him on
numerous pieces of human rights legislation, including the Iran
Democratic Transition Act in this Congress.
Sam's tenure in the Senate has come to an end, but not his service to
the people of Kansas. They overwhelmingly called him back home to serve
as their Governor, and begin the next chapter in his remarkable career.
Sandy and I wish him and his family all the best.
Judd Gregg
Mr. President, today I would like to join with my colleagues in
appreciation and admiration of Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Judd is a native of New Hampshire and after practicing as an attorney
in Nashua, where he was born, he began a devoted career of public
service to his State. Before coming to the Senate, Judd served as a
member of his State's executive council, as a Representative, and then
on to become, as his father Hugh Gregg had been before him, Governor of
the Granite State.
Judd was a successful and accomplished Governor. When he left Concord
to join the Senate, he left his State with not only a balanced budget
but a surplus as well. His leadership and record of fiscal
responsibility has served as an example for our entire Nation to
follow.
His expertise on budgetary and fiscal issues has benefitted all his
fellow Senators on the Budget Committee. As both chairman and ranking
member of the committee, Judd put together both excellent staff and the
resources necessary to advance our goals of cutting spending, balancing
the budget, and reducing our nation's debt. With steps such as his
successful sponsorship of the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, which
reduced mandatory spending for the first time in years, hard-working
American taxpayers have saved billions thanks to Senator Gregg's
efforts.
Senator Gregg and I worked hard together in fighting to reduce our
government's burden on taxpayers and the excessive spending that fuels
it. We have both fought hard for our government to take our financial
future seriously and to make the tough decisions necessary for it to be
secured for our generation and for many more to come.
I would like to thank Senator Gregg again for his leadership on these
important issues, and his extensive service to the people of New
Hampshire. My wife Sandy and I wish Senator Gregg, his wife Kathy, and
their family all the best.
Kit Bond
Mr. President, I join my colleagues in appreciation and admiration of
Senator Kit Bond. Kit has been a faithful public servant to the people
of Missouri for many years. I feel privileged to have had the
opportunity to serve alongside him in the U.S. Senate.
Before being elected to this body, Kit made a strong impression as a
student, a lawyer, and a public servant. He graduated Cum Laude from
Princeton University, and was first in his law school class at the
University of Virginia. He practiced law as an assistant attorney
general for the State of Missouri under John Danforth, who himself was
a future Senator from the ``Show-Me State.'' His colleagues at that
time included John Ashcroft, who also went on to serve in this Chamber,
and future Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Kit often jokes that he transitioned from the second most hated
career--a lawyer--to the first: a politician. The people of Missouri
have repeatedly affirmed that he made the right choice.
[[Page 22364]]
They elected him to be their State Auditor. They elected him as the
youngest Governor in Missouri's history. And they have elected him four
times to represent them in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Bond brought many of his passions as Governor to this
Chamber, including his longtime support for Missouri's successful
Parents as Teachers Program. He also kept a special place in his heart
for issues relating to children. In time he rose to become a senior
member of the Appropriations Committee as well as the Environment and
Public Works Committees.
Senator Bond and I worked most closely together on issues relating to
national defense and foreign affairs. In this Congress alone, he and I
jointly introduced the Military Voting Protection Act of 2009, the Iran
Democratic Transition Act of 2010, and a resolution affirming Israel's
right to self-defense. His leadership as vice chairman of the Select
Committee on Intelligence has been a lasting contribution to the
security of our Nation,
Kit has helped shape legislation that will govern our Nation for
years to come, but his spirit is what I will miss the most. As he has
said: ``Serving Missouri has been my life's work. I have walked the
land, fished its rivers and been humbled by the honesty and hard work
of our people. The highest honor is to receive and safeguard the public
trust.''
In his retirement, Kit will now have the opportunity to focus his
time on his other loves: his wife Linda, his son Sam, and his new
daughter-in-law Margaret. The Mizzou Tigers and the St. Louis Cardinals
will also likely see him in the stands more often. Sandy and I wish
both Kit and Linda the very best as they continue their journey
together.
Jim Bunning
Mr. President, I join my colleagues in appreciation and admiration of
Senator Jim Bunning.
Millions of American baseball fans know Jim as one of the most
accomplished athletes of his generation. Jim pitched for both the
Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies during his 17-year career. He
was the second pitcher in history to notch 100 wins and strike out
1,000 batters in both the American and National Leagues, and when he
retired he was second on the all-time strikeout list. His impressive
career earned him a spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
While he wore the uniforms of teams in Michigan and Pennsylvania,
Jim's heart never left his native Kentucky. Six years after retiring
from baseball, Jim decided to run for public office and won a city
council seat in Fort Thomas, KY. He was later elected to the Kentucky
State Senate and became the Republican leader. Kentuckians then elected
Jim to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 4th District of
Kentucky where he served until 1998. During his time in the House, Jim
committed himself to defending Social Security as chairman of the
Social Security Subcommittee. His unwavering stance on protecting
Social Security contributed to the establishment of the Social Security
Administration as a separate agency.
Jim was elected to the Senate in 1998 and quickly became a strong
voice for fiscal responsibility. He became the first native Kentuckian
on the Finance Committee in 40 years, and also served on the Budget
Committee--and in both capacities I had the opportunity to work with
him. Jim also served as chairman of the Banking Committee's Economic
Policy Subcommittee, where he authored legislation that reformed the
National Flood Insurance Program and made it possible for millions of
Americans to protect their homes affordably.
Jim's passion for policymaking has helped him shape legislation that
will govern our Nation for years to come, but his greatest legacy is
his family. He and Mary raised 9 children and have 35 grandchildren and
4 great-grandchildren. Sandy and I offer our best wishes to the entire
Bunning family, and we thank him for his years of service to our great
Nation.
George Voinovich
Mr. President, I join my colleagues in appreciation and admiration of
Senator George Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich represents the great State of Ohio--and in some
sense he has never left. He was born and raised in Cleveland, earned a
bachelor of arts degree in government from Ohio University, and
received a law degree from the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State
University. After more than four decades of public service, he and
Janet still live in Cleveland with their family.
Before coming to Washington, Senator Voinovich established a long
record of service to the people of the Buckeye State: as a member of
the State legislature, a Cuyahoga County Commissioner, the Lieutenant
Governor of Ohio, mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. As mayor of
Cleveland, he helped turn around the local economy after the city
declared bankruptcy in the 1970s. As Governor, George spearheaded
economic recovery efforts after Ohio fell into a recession during the
early 1990s. He helped reduce Ohio's unemployment rate to a 25-year low
and maintained the lowest budgetary growth levels in 30 years. Along
the way, he became the only person to hold the highest leadership
positions in both the National Governors Association and the National
League of Cities.
The people of Ohio sent George to Washington to serve in the U.S.
Senate in 1998 and then reelected him 6 years ago in a landslide
victory. Senator Voinovich's policy accomplishments reflect his
dedication to maintaining fiscal responsibility, enhancing national
security, increasing America's global competitiveness, and improving
the federal government's efficiency. His Mortgage Relief Act of 2007
was the first piece of legislation to be signed into law that aimed to
lessen the impact of America's foreclosure crisis.
Senator Voinovich has also been a strong voice for America's
interests and values all over the world. He has been a strong proponent
of NATO expansion, U.N. reform, and U.S. public diplomacy efforts. He
has also spoken out strongly against global anti-Semitism, racism and
other forms of intolerance.
Sandy and I wish all the best to George and Janet, as well as their
three children and eight grandchildren. And we thank George for his
many years of service in the U.S. Senate.
Jim Bunning
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to Senator Jim Bunning,
who is retiring after honorably serving the people of Kentucky for 24
years.
Throughout his political career, Jim has been a fierce taxpayer's
advocate. A bold defender of life and protector of families. A small
business ally. And, a courageous critic of bad government policy.
As the targets of his criticism have learned, Jim's words can
sometimes be sharp. That is because cold, hard truths have sharp edges
and Jim Bunning speaks in cold, hard truths.
Even when it comes to his own party.
In the summer of 2008, shortly after a Republican Treasury Secretary
obtained the authority to pump unlimited money into Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae, Jim was rightfully upset. ``When I picked up the newspaper
yesterday, I thought I woke up in France,'' he told the Secretary in a
hearing. ``But no,'' Jim said, ``it turned out it was socialism here in
the United States.''
Jim often asked simple questions that were easy to answer truthfully
and didn't tolerate equivocation. In the case of the Fannie and Freddie
bailouts, he asked the Treasury Secretary, ``Where will the money come
from?''
The Treasury Secretary said it was better to ``be unspecified and
enhance confidence in the market.''
Jim asked again saying that ``doesn't answer the question. Where is
the money going to come from if you have to put it up?''
There was more waffling, but Jim finally pushed the Treasury
Secretary to admit the money was going to come from the taxpayer. The
taxpayers were going to pay.
He later called for the resignation of that Republican Treasury
Secretary because he was, as Jim put it, ``acting like the minister of
finance in China.''
[[Page 22365]]
``No company fails in Communist China, because they're all partly
owned by the government,'' Jim noted.
Jim has also been a brave critic of the Federal Reserve. He has told
the Fed Chairman, who was appointed by a Republican President and
helped orchestrate bailouts for those considered too big to fail that,
``You are the definition of a moral hazard.''
``Your Fed has become the creature from Jekyll Island,'' Jim said.
And then he asked for the Fed Chairman's resignation, too.
Jim has performed a great public service by bringing attention to the
economic damage being caused by the Fed with cheap money when no one
else would. He was there calling for more oversight of the Federal
Reserve long before it became a Tea Party cause and he deserves credit
for driving the issue into the mainstream.
As Senator, you could say Jim's approach has been direct as the
fastballs he threw that made him a major league, Hall of Fame pitcher.
When the Democrats tried to pass off phony paygo rules as real reform,
Jim exposed it as a trick pitch. It was a gimmick to fool Americans
into thinking they would pay for their big-spending plans.
The Democrats said paygo would obligate Congress to offset any new
spending with new revenues or spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Soon after, they tried to pass $10 billion in unpaid for unemployment
extensions Moreover, the Democrats wanted to pass it by unanimous
consent. Meaning, no public debate. No rollcall vote. No
accountability.
The Democrats bet no one would oppose benefits for the unemployed in
this bad economy. They believed, as they continue to, that they can
keep giving out money without paying for it and without any
consequences.
Jim did not concede. He objected and stood his ground on the Senate
floor. And by doing so, he showed everyone what a sham paygo is. The
Wall Street Journal called it ``his finest hour.''
Bunning announced his retirement in July 2009, more than a year ago.
He could have taken it easy during his last years in the Senate. He
didn't have to tackle the Treasury, the Fed or insist unemployment
extensions be paid for.
But, he did. Jim Bunning, the Hall of Fame Pitcher, the distinguished
Senator, father of 9 and grandfather of 40 cared too much for this
country to sit this one out.
He said in his farewell speech that he prays the Members of Congress
will stop spending our future generations into higher taxes and a lower
standard of living than we have now. I pray for that, too.
Finally, I express my gratitude to Senator Bunning for supporting the
new Republican from his state who will inherit his Senate seat next
year. Jim campaigned for someone to take his place who would say no to
bailouts, stop the takeovers, end the wasteful spending and bring down
the national debt. The nation will benefit greatly by continuing to
have a senator at Jim's desk who believes as much in the principles of
free markets and freedom as Jim.
Thank you Jim for giving America your best until the very last
inning.
Sam Brownback
I rise in tribute to my good friend, Senator Sam Brownback, who will
soon be Governor Sam Brownback.
Senator Brownback leaves this Chamber as a man of character and
success. He made a promise to the citizens of Kansas to only serve two
terms in the U.S. Senate and he is honoring it.
He will continue to serve his constituents well, as he will soon join
the ranks of Republican Governors who are committed to saving freedom
and free-markets. Sam and his fellow Republican Governors will stand
sentry in their state capitols, defending Americans from unaffordable
mandates and unprecedented intrusions by the Federal Government.
The current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Democrat Kathleen
Sebelius, left Topeka to come to Washington and impose an
unconstitutional health care takeover on all Americans. I am confident
Republican Governor-elect Sam Brownback, who is leaving Washington for
Topeka, will successfully fight for state rights in court and preserve
freedom for Kansans.
Sam won on a platform of opportunity, accountability and
responsibility--the very principles his State was founded upon.
His ``Road Map for Kansas'' is built on ideas to grow the economy,
create private-sector jobs, improve education, reform the state
government and support Kansas families. This is exactly the kind of
leadership our nation so desperately needs. His five-point plan is a
clear and bright as the tips of the stars on the Kansas flag.
In addition to the roadmap for Kansas, Sam has promised to institute
a spending freeze for his State his very first month in office.
It has been an honor to serve alongside Sam, one of our nation's
premier pro-life leaders. He knows no one should be denied the right to
life--especially the unborn. As he said in a speech at the 2004 March
for Life, ``If we demean and degrade one human life, we demean and
degrade all human life.''
As a U.S. Senator, Sam relentlessly fought to protect the unborn. He
was the principle sponsor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, the
Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, the Human Cloning
Prohibition Act, and others. He has also worked to advance the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
Sam has increased awareness about the joy of adoption. He can
personally attest to it. He and his wife Mary and three children Abby,
Andy and Elizabeth have welcomed two children in need of a loving home
into their lives. The Brownback's youngest son Mark is from Guatemala.
Their youngest daughter Jenna is from China, where families are
subjected to grave and callous one-child policy.
Thank you Sam for fighting for a better life for all of God's
children.
As we bid him farewell, I would like to reflect on one short passage
from his book, ``From Power to Purpose.'' In it, Sam wrote ``The heart
of the matter is the human heart, which is where human goodness
begins.''
That shows the kind of heart Sam has for public service. His tenure
in the U.S. Senate is marked by his compassion and care for his fellow
man.
He will be dearly missed here in Washington. But, as Jesus said,
``There are many rooms in my Father's house.'' And Sam is just moving
to another room where he will continue to serve God.
george voinovich
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, when George Voinovich came to the Senate
in 1998, he brought with him a wealth of experience as a State
legislator, county commissioner, mayor, and Governor. More important,
he brought an independent mind, common sense, and a commitment to
results.
Through more than four decades of public service, he has always been
guided by the principle that a fundamental obligation of government is
to honor its responsibilities to citizens. His goal has always been to
ensure that those in public office ``work harder and smarter, and do
more with less.''
But Senator Voinovich is revered here and at home for deeds, not
words. As mayor, he brought Cleveland back from bankruptcy and led its
transformation into a three-time All-America City. As Governor, he
steered Ohio through the recession of the early 1990s, turned a State
budget in the red back to black, and helped rebuild Ohio's industry and
infrastructure for the 21st century.
From his executive background in local and State government, Senator
Voinovich knew that any government is only as good as the people
working for it. He has been a strong advocate for improved government
management, and for recruiting, retaining, rewarding, and recognizing
the best government workforce.
It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Voinovich on
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He is devoted
to protecting our Nation and our people.
[[Page 22366]]
Our committee's work was aided greatly by his leadership of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management, and his conviction
that government works only when it ensures that the right people have
the right resources to get the job done. He has been instrumental in
virtually every major civil service issue for more than a decade and
has championed 17 pieces of legislation to transform and improve our
Federal workforce.
Since coming to Washington, the ``Workforce Senator'' has been a
watchdog for the interests of the taxpayers and of government
employees. Early in his service, the Senior Executive Service
Performance Improvement Act and the Chief Human Capital Officers Act
recognized that the Federal Government must compete if it is to attract
the best. In this Congress, the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act
addressed the need to streamline recruiting so that the right person
can be hired at the right time.
And his efforts have been successful. A recent Federal employee
survey on the best places to work found that the top three agencies--
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, GAO, and NASA--are the agencies with
the personnel flexibilities Senator Voinovich worked to achieve.
I know how deeply George Voinovich cares about the men and women who
serve as Federal employees because on many issues we have fought
together. In particular, I want to recognize his role in pressing for
pay for performance reforms in our Federal workforce. If we want an
effective government, we must encourage excellence in our workforce, as
Senator Voinovich clearly understands.
He has been an effective voice for fiscal discipline, for
comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, and for enhancing America's
competitiveness in a global economy. All of these issues and so many
more demonstrate his commitment to honoring responsibilities and
achieving results.
When Senator Voinovich announced early last year that he would not
seek reelection, the outpouring of tributes was heartfelt and
bipartisan. As one Ohio newspaper wrote, ``Once he latches on to an
issue, he doesn't let go until he is satisfied with the outcome.''
Senator Voinovich's determination, combined with wisdom, experience,
and decency, made him an outstanding U.S. Senator and public servant. I
thank George Voinovich for his years of service and for his friendship,
and wish him and Janet all the best in the years to come.
Russ Feingold
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I take a moment to say a few words about the
junior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, who will be
leaving the Senate at the end of this session. We have served together
in the Senate, working for the people of Wisconsin every day, since he
was elected in 1992. But now Wisconsin is losing a powerful and
thoughtful advocate that carried on the proud progressive tradition of
Robert LaFollette.
Russ came to the Senate by winning an upset election, running as an
outsider. He famously wrote a promise to the people of Wisconsin on his
garage door, and people responded to his sincerity. Keeping that
promise has kept him close to the people of Wisconsin as he traveled to
every county in the State once a year to hold a listening session. That
kind of accessibility, and his pledge to raise his campaign money
mostly from the people of Wisconsin, gives him a credibility and
integrity that no one in the State can question.
Money and politics has always been an issue that Russ felt
passionately about. So it should be no surprise that his biggest
legislative win was when he worked with Senator John McCain to put
restrictions on campaign financing with the historic Bi-Partisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill.
That legislation, like many of his stands over the years, didn't always
make him popular with his colleagues, but it was the right thing to do
to try and root out corruption and roll back the influence of the
special interests. The American people will never have confidence in
our system as long as they believe that a politician's support can be
bought and sold. Russ worked to restore confidence in our government
and he should be commended for that.
He took a lot of unpopular positions over the years. Most notable was
his sole opposition to the Patriot Act. He stood up for his ideals when
it would have been easy to brush them aside. But that is the kind of
person Russ is. He was never willing to sacrifice his principles to do
the politically easy thing. Our country is safer because of his work.
Russ also has been a tough budget hawk, working tirelessly to bring
down spending and give the next generation a debt-free future. He also
helped form the current lobbying rules that restrict gifts, employment,
and perks that can be given to members and staff by special interest
lobbyists. These policies didn't always make him popular around here--
and sometimes caused problems inside his own party--but he was willing
to buck the system when he felt he had to.
Janesville should be proud of their hometown son who has accomplished
so much. He leaves the Senate, but I hope he doesn't leave public
service. His character and intelligence are needed by his community,
State and country. We will miss him.
Chris Dodd
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, occasionally in the career of a U.S.
Senator, one is given the opportunity to shape legislation that will
bring historic change to our Nation. The Senators who have seized such
opportunities stand among the Senate giants of our lifetime: ``Scoop''
Jackson. Hubert Humphrey. Everett Dirksen. Ted Kennedy.
As this Congress comes to a close, we must say goodbye to Chris Dodd,
a Senator who has seized such opportunities, one whose drive and
dedication and wisdom have enabled us to bring great and needed change.
Senator Chris Dodd has been a good friend to me. He has been a leader
to those who seek an America that is stronger, fairer and more just.
Senator Dodd will be rightly remembered for his essential role in
passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act. In the aftermath of a financial crisis that brought the nation's
economy to a halt and threatened a second Great Depression, the need
for Wall Street reform was clear, but so were the enormous obstacles to
passage. In addition to honest disagreements about how best to proceed,
we faced determined opposition from Wall Street, which wanted to
maintain a status quo that put profits ahead of economic stability. All
of us who participated in the debate over that bill know how complex
and difficult it was to craft it, and we all have enormous hopes that
this landmark bill will curb the excesses that cost so many Americans
their jobs and homes and businesses in the financial crisis.
History also will mark Senator Dodd's key role in passage of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a landmark step in the
decades-long fight to ensure that every American has access to
affordable health care. Taking up the baton for his dear friend,
Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd provided strong and sure leadership,
again in the face of obstacles that at times threatened the bill's very
survival. Thanks to his dedication, health coverage is more secure and
affordable for families who have it, and more accessible to families
without it.
If Senator Dodd had accomplished no other legislative victories than
these two, he could rightly claim a place among the Senate's most
effective legislators. But Chris Dodd accomplished much more.
Millions of American families have benefitted from his work in
enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act. Before this legislation
became law in 1993, Americans faced wrenching choices between their
responsibilities at home and at work. Despite two Presidential vetoes,
Senator Dodd continued fighting until he had succeeded. And today,
American workers are able to give their families the time and attention
they need without fear of losing their job.
Families and children have been at the heart of much of his work. The
[[Page 22367]]
child care and development block grant program, which he fought to
establish, has helped millions of low-income families get the child
care they so desperately needed. The Head Start program has been a
career-long priority, and his hard work to ensure that Head Start
remains strong has made a huge difference in countless lives.
His work on behalf of families extends to protecting them from
predatory credit card companies. I worked closely with him in the fight
for passage of the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act, which
provided tough new protections against unfair practices in the credit
card industry.
Part of the reason for Chris Dodd's extraordinarily successful
legislative career is that people simply like working with him. He is
good-natured, open and non-defensive, willing to listen to differing
points of view. His openness is accompanied by an infectious sense of
humor that has eased tense moments and helped us all take ourselves a
little less seriously, which in turn has helped overcome some mighty
serious impasses.
A common thread runs through all his signature accomplishments.
Throughout his career, Chris Dodd has been dedicated to the idea that
compassion has a place in this chamber; that as we do our work, we
should keep in mind that real families, with real problems, are looking
to us for solutions; and that a Senator, with hard work and
resourcefulness and teamwork, can make a difference in the lives of
those families.
As Chris Dodd's Senate career draws to a close, speeches will be
given, portraits will be hung, someday statues will be raised, but the
ultimate monument to his Senate career will be the mother or father who
has time to care for a sick child because of the Family and Medical
Leave Act. It will be the parent who doesn't have to choose between
putting food on the table or providing health insurance for his
children. It will be the child who excels in the classroom because of
Head Start. The monuments to Chris Dodd will be the millions of
Americans whose lives are safer, more secure and more prosperous
because of the work he has done here. No Senator could ask for more
meaningful tributes. I will miss his wisdom and his humor as we conduct
business here, but I will continue to value his friendship. I wish him
and his wonderful family the happiest of times in all the years to
come.
Russ Feingold
Mr. President, true bipartisanship has been in sadly short supply in
this Chamber recently. Sadly, at the end of this Congress, the supply
of bipartisanship will be a little lower, because we will no longer
have the benefit of Russ Feingold's presence in the Senate.
Senator Feingold's service to the Senate demonstrates that one need
not abandon strongly held convictions to reach bipartisan solutions.
His example proves that disagreeing with someone on one issue need not
prevent working with them on another issue. He has shown that one can
act as a good steward of taxpayer dollars and a careful advocate for
fiscal responsibility without leaving behind the working families who
need us to stand up for them.
There are many examples of Senator Feingold's search for bipartisan
solutions, but justifiably, he is best known for the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance legislation. The assault on this legislation in the
courts should not distract us from its wisdom. This bipartisan
legislation was based upon the inherently American and inherently
democratic notion that elections should be decided by the will of the
people, and not because of the influence of wealthy donors or moneyed
interests. This is a notion that is not Republican or Democratic, not
liberal or conservative. It relies not on party loyalty or ideological
fervor, but on a sense of justice. That sense of justice is central to
what Russ Feingold has brought to the Senate.
Likewise, the civil rights of American citizens are not a matter of
party or ideology. I admire Senator Feingold's unflagging commitment to
those rights, and his efforts to find a reasonable balance between
protecting our safety and preserving our freedom.
Now, Senator Feingold and I have not agreed on every issue. While we
both believed the Iraq war was a mistake, he believed we should respond
by ending funding for the war. I disagreed, and believed that such a
move would harm our troops in the field whom we should support. But I
never doubted that Senator Feingold came to his conclusions only after
giving careful consideration to the arguments opposing them.
We will miss Russ Feingold, miss his intellect, his independence, and
his dedication. I will always call him my friend. The Senate will be
poorer for his absence. But I know that the Nation will continue to
enjoy the benefits of his service.
____________________
MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES ACT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this week, with little fanfare, we completed
work on an important bill, through a bipartisan process, by passage of
S. 3984, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010.
This bill updates museum and library services funded through the
Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to better meet the
needs of Americans of all ages and in all types of locations.
The Museum and Library Services Act represents our national
commitment to the institutions that are essential to building strong
and vibrant communities. Through a relatively modest federal
investment, this law helps build capacity to support and expand access
to library and museum services at the State and local level.
We were able to complete this legislation because we worked
together--across the aisle and across the Capitol, and with the input
of the museum and library community.
I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank our HELP
Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Mike Enzi, and Senator
Richard Burr for working with me to craft this bipartisan legislation.
I would also like to recognize our cosponsors, Senators Cochran,
Collins, and Tester. In addition, I would like to express my
appreciation to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George
Miller and Ranking Member John Kline for quickly guiding this bill
through the House.
No piece of legislation can be enacted without the diligent work of
dedicated staff. I would like to thank Kristin Romero and Margaret
Bomba of the office of legislative counsel who worked with us to draft
the bill. I would also like to recognize the efforts of staff: Thomas
Showalter, Pam Smith, and Bethany Little with Chairman Harkin; Beth
Buehlmann and Kelly Hastings with Senator Enzi; Celia Sims with Senator
Burr; Lory Yudin with the HELP Committee; and in my office, Elyse
Wasch, Moira Lenehan-Razzuri, Andrew Odgren, and Jason Kanter.
Additionally, all of us who worked on this bill appreciate the
technical assistance and feedback we received from the staff of IMLS.
Finally, I would like to commend the American Library Association and
the American Association of Museums for developing thoughtful
recommendations and working with us to improve museum and library
services across the Nation. I especially appreciate the wisdom and
input I have received from the vibrant library and museum community in
Rhode Island.
I look forward to this legislation being swiftly signed into law.
____________________
TRUCK WEIGHTS ON MAINE INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the continuing
resolution, H.R. 3082.
My amendment will rectify an impediment to international commerce
flowing through Maine, and protect Maine drivers and pedestrians. For
the past year, Maine truckers have operated under a pilot program that
allows trucks over 80,000 pounds to move from local roads to safer
interstate routes, far from schools and homes. The pilot project has
been a great success, and I seek to make it permanent.
[[Page 22368]]
Unless we take action before December 17, trucks over 80,000 pounds
traveling to or from the Canadian border or within upstate Maine will
be forced onto secondary roads, many of them two-lane roads, which run
through towns and villages. Trucks traveling between Houlton and
Hampden, ME, on these local roads will pass more than three thousand
homes, several schools, and hundreds of intersections. Tanker trucks
carrying fuel will again be traveling past elementary schools and
libraries, and competing with local traffic. Not only is this an
inefficient method of moving goods, but it also unnecessarily increases
risks on narrow local roads.
What is the result of such truck traffic on local roads? According to
a study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic
fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times
greater on secondary roads in Maine than on exempted interstates.
Serious injuries are seven times more likely. The past year's pilot
program has proved that Maine's rural interstate is a safer place for
large trucks.
Maine Department of Transportation officials strongly support this
program. Extensive studies and infrastructure inspections have left
State DOT officials confident that heavier trucks carrying interstate
and international loads belong on the interstate.
I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on the tax bill
compromise that was fashioned by the President and Republican leaders
in the Congress.
I voted against the compromise.
I recognize that the Republicans in Congress put the President in the
position of having to agree to things in the compromise that he
strongly objected to. And I also realize that compromise is essential
to move forward and to try to fix what is wrong with our economy.
But here is the dilemma. We have two very serious problems that can
undermine America's economic future. First is the crushing debt in our
fiscal policy. Our debt is currently over $13 trillion with a yearly
deficit of over $1 trillion. This proposal will substantially increase
that debt which I believe will continue to undermine the confidence
people have in this country's future.
The estimate that this agreement will increase the debt by over $1
trillion is far short of what will actually happen. The tax cut
extensions are for 2 years and I am certain that in 2 years, in the
middle of an election campaign, the tax cuts will be further extended.
The total cost of those tax cuts for a decade will be to add $4
trillion to the Federal debt. Again, I think that will undermine any
confidence the American people or, for that matter, others in the world
will have about our ability to rein in a fiscal policy that has us
borrowing 40 percent of everything we spend in the Federal Government.
The second serious problem that we face is the slow rate of economic
growth that is unlikely to create jobs at a pace that we need. I
understand that in order to address this problem we would want to have
a further economic stimulus to extend the growth of the economy.
However, this economy has been about as stimulated as any economy in
history. Adding more stimulus through borrowing seems to me is not the
way to promote confidence or economic growth.
Earlier in the week I voted for cloture because I did not want to
block a compromise on these matters. However, the specific compromise
which we voted on yesterday I believe falls short of what the country
needs, especially in dealing with what I believe is the controlling
issue of a crushing Federal debt and therefore an erosion of confidence
in our economy.
The fact that this agreement was flawed was not the President's
fault. Rather, it was due to the position of the Republicans insisting
on the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Without that
concession, the Republicans made it clear they were going to block any
compromise.
If our country is going to remain a world economic power we need to
make good decisions and courageous decisions to fix the things we know
are wrong. In order to do that, the President is going to need help. It
requires more willingness to compromise on the part of the Republicans
than they have shown recently.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, the U.S. Senate took an
important vote to prevent the largest tax increase in American
history--and help get America's job creators off the sidelines.
I voted for this bill for one simple reason: raising taxes during a
recession on anyone is not a good idea.
This bill prevents tax increases on every American who pays income
taxes, because it keeps the lowest bracket at 10 percent; keeps the
highest bracket 35 percent; preserves relief from the marriage
penalty--as well as the $1,000 per child tax credit; blocks higher
taxes on capital gains and dividends; protects at least 21 million
families from the alternative minimum tax; and reduces the ``death
tax'' by 20 percent from what it would have been on January 1.
Some of my fellow conservatives have reservations about this bill,
and I share them. This bill certainly falls far short of what I think
we would see if Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and
the White House. I think we would see a permanent extension of all the
2001 and 2003 tax relief; a much lower estate tax; and zero new
spending or tax breaks for special interests.
But given that President Obama will hold the veto pen for at least 2
more years--and given all the class-warfare rhetoric that the President
and the majority have indulged in over the last few years--I consider
an extension of tax relief for every American taxpayer to be a
remarkable legislative achievement for Republicans. One pundit summed
up the agreement this way: ``If someone had told me, the day after
Election Day 2008, that tax rates on income and capital would not
increase for the next four years, I would have laughed at them. Now
it's about to come true, and Presidents Obama and Clinton are helping
make it happen.''
The only thing I would add to that statement is that several of my
colleagues deserve credit for making this agreement happen--especially
Senator McConnell, Senator Kyl, and Senator Grassley.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also raised
objections to this legislation--and I would like to respond to just one
of those objections: the claim that it is hypocritical to say you are
concerned about the deficit but then vote to keep taxes low on American
families and small businesses.
Let me set the record straight on what actually happened to the
deficit once the tax relief Congress originally passed in 2001 and 2003
began to kick in to our economy. As our colleagues remind us
constantly, deficits did go up during the first years of the Bush
administration--in part due to the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the
recession, and 9/11. In fact, by fiscal year 2004, the deficit was up
to $413 billion, or 3.5 percent of GDP.
But then, just as the 2001 and 2003 tax relief started to kick in, a
strange thing happened to the deficit: It went down to $318 billion in
fiscal year 2005, then down again to $248 billion in fiscal year 2006,
and then down to $161 billion in fiscal year 2007. By then our deficit
was only 1.2 percent of GDP.
Now why did the deficit go down in those years? One big reason is
that tax relief helped grow the economy; got about 8 million more
people on the payroll between 2003 and 2007; and therefore generated
more tax revenue.
I think the person who said it best was Austin Goolsbee, the chairman
of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. On ``Meet the Press''
Sunday, he had this to say: ``You cannot reduce the deficit if the
economy is not growing, period.'' I agree.
Now I also agree that preventing a massive tax increase is not the
only thing we must do to get our national debt under control. We must
cut government spending--and that means killing the $1.3 trillion
omnibus spending bill the majority introduced yesterday. We must study
the proposals of
[[Page 22369]]
the President's Debt Commission--and take action to prevent the looming
fiscal catastrophe that they described. We must address head-on the
need for reform in our entitlement programs like Social Security and
Medicare--and put them on a sustainable path. And we must pass a
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
We can begin addressing all of these tough decisions in just a few
weeks--once the new Congress elected by the American people is sworn
in. Today, our urgent decision is whether we want taxes to go up on
January 1, or rather extend the tax relief and remove a huge element of
uncertainty among our job creators.
I believe the choice is clear, and so do the American people. 69
percent of the American people support this legislation, according to a
poll released yesterday by the Washington Post and ABC News.
As usual, the American people have got it right.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE FBI
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the men and women
of the FBI's Baltimore field office who have prevented yet another
catastrophic terrorist attack on our Nation. Similar to the plot to
bomb the tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR, over the recent
Thanksgiving holiday weekend, the outstanding work of the men and women
of the FBI's Baltimore field office was successful in infiltrating and
thwarting the planned bombing of a military recruitment center in
Catonsville, MD. This deplorable scheme was meant to harm the young men
and women who sacrifice so much for our country by serving in the Armed
Forces. That is why I am grateful for the FBI's months of careful,
covert and skillful investigations and operations to disrupt this plot,
put the terrorist behind bars, and keep Marylanders safe.
This is the second time in as many weeks that the FBI has stopped a
terrorist plot to harm Americans here at home, reminding us they are on
the job 24 hours a day 7 days a week keeping the United States safe.
Whether they are catching sexual predators who exploit children on the
Internet, targeting scammers who prey on hard-working, middle-class
families with mortgage fraud schemes, stopping cyber crooks from
hacking into U.S. networks, or preventing terrorists bent on murder and
destruction from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the FBI is
committed to protecting our communities with fidelity, bravery and
integrity. This job is not easy and most of the time the good work done
by FBI employees does not make headlines, but they remain committed to
their mission of fighting to protect 300 million Americans nonetheless.
A tremendous amount of detective work was carried out by the FBI and
their Federal, State and local law enforcement and homeland security
partners to prevent this attack and save lives. The takedown went
exactly as planned, and that can be attributed to professionalism and
diligence displayed by the many agencies involved. Leading the charge
was the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which was integral in coordinating
a multiagency team that investigated the threat thoroughly and ensured
the safety of Marylanders. In addition, I want to praise the critical
contributions to the investigation by the Baltimore City Police
Department, Baltimore County Police Department, Maryland State Police,
Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Army Recruiting Command, Air
Force Recruitment Command, Air Force Office of Special Investigations,
Army 902d Military Intelligence Group, Defense Criminal Investigative
Services (DCIS) and other DOD components, U.S. Marshals Service, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
As chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, and Science, I know firsthand the importance of the national
security responsibilities shouldered by the FBI as they protect us from
both homegrown and international terrorism. In a time when many
Americans eye the Federal institutions with wariness and disapproval,
the FBI continues getting the job done and restoring confidence in our
government's ability to keep us safe. Again, I congratulate the FBI's
brave men and women for their tireless efforts in protecting our
communities, and say to them, ``Keep up the fight!''
____________________
ARGENTINA DEBT DEFAULT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the debt default
of the Republic of Argentina. Since it defaulted on its debt 9 years
ago, the nation has ignored the judgments of American courts even
though Argentina committed to honor such judgments when the debt was
originally issued.
In 2001, Argentina defaulted on over $81 billion in sovereign debt,
the largest default in modern history. American creditors were heavily
exposed to the losses that resulted from that default and Argentina's
debt restructuring. Despite paying off certain creditors in full,
Argentina still owes U.S. bondholders over $3 billion while holding
nearly $54 billion in reserves.
Bondholders have won over 100 U.S. Federal court judgments against
Argentina. Additionally, Argentina has not paid claims brought by U.S.
companies and other bondholders in international forums, which have
collectively issued over $900 million in judgments against Argentina.
I have been approached on this matter by my constituents in
Mississippi who are concerned about the outstanding court judgments.
The issue of Argentina's default also reaches beyond my state's borders
to every U.S. taxpayer because some of these losses are qualified tax
deductions.
In light of my concerns, I am considering introducing legislation
next year to address this issue. This is a step I hope I do not have to
make, but I believe previous obligations should be honored.
____________________
PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to address two matters
concerning the impeachment of Judge Porteous. As a former Federal
prosecutor and State attorney general, I have reviewed and drafted a
number of indictments. I do not believe that evidence of acts committed
before confirmation should be withheld from consideration in the
impeachment process or that it is inappropriate to aggregate claims
together.
The Constitution does not require that all conduct be committed post
Federal appointment nor does it stipulate at all when the conduct must
occur. Whether treason or bribery occurs before or after confirmation
is not the question, but whether or not it occurred. If this were not
so, individuals like Judge Porteous, who are very capable of practicing
the art of deception and are confirmed, could not be removed from
office.
I believe that all four counts against Judge Porteous were well
drafted. The Senate has previously stated that ``the House has
substantial discretion in determining how to aggregate related alleged
acts of misconduct in framing Articles of Impeachment and has
historically frequently chosen to aggregate multiple factual
allegations in a single impeachment article . . . Judge Porteous
engaged in a number of elaborate schemes. Having prosecuted fraud,
conspiracy, and racketeering cases, I understand that the facts in
these types of cases can be extensive and can build up over a period of
years. What we should look at is whether the events are sufficiently
related so as not to produce prejudice. Each of these counts told a
complete story of wrongdoing that was coherent and was held together
logically.
Finally, let me say that Judge Porteous's behavior should serve as a
reminder to the President of the critical importance of vetting his
nominees and as a reminder to this body that a thorough confirmation
process is imperative. The process should always emphasize character,
integrity, mental and emotional health, and high morals.
____________________
OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to join in a colloquy with my
ranking
[[Page 22370]]
member, Senator Bond, to correct clerical errors to project and
attribution tables in the transportation, housing, and urban
development title to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2011.
Senator Casey should be added for attribution to the Economic
Development Initiative project for the city of Wilkes-Barre, PA.
The project under the Bus and Bus Facilities Account for Longview
Transit Vehicle Replacements, Clark County, WA, should read Longview
Transit Vehicle Replacements, Cowlitz County, WA.
The project under Surface Transportation Improvements Bench Boulevard
Improvements, Helena, MT, should read Bench Boulevard Improvements,
Billings, MT, where the project construction will be taking place.
The project under Surface Transportation Improvements for the
Maritime Fire and Safety Administration, WA, should read Maritime Fire
and Safety Association, WA.
Senator Boxer should not be listed for attribution to the Marin-
Sonoma Narrows, CA, project under the Surface Transportation
Investments account, and she should be listed for attribution for the
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, SMART, CA project under the Federal
Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant account.
The project under the Surface Transportation Improvement Account
listed as SR 522 Corridor Improvements should read SR 522 Corridor
Signal Improvements, 61st and 181st Street, WA.
Additionally, Senator Franken should be added as a requester of the
Economic Development Initiative project for the Lutheran Social
Services of Minnesota, MN, Renovation of Homes for the Disabled.
Mr. BOND. My colleague and chair, Senator Murray, is correct. In
addition to the projects she mentioned, the project description under
the Economic Development Initiative Account for the City of Brewer, ME,
should read ``For the development of a riverfront trail system as part
of the Penobscot Landing redevelopment initiative.''
Further, under the technical corrections table, Senators Chambliss
and Isakson should not be listed for attribution for the Newton County
Eastside High School to County Library Trail, GA.
Mrs. MURRAY. I have confirmed with my staff that these projects have
been properly disclosed and have been certified to be free of any
pecuniary interest.
Mr. BOND. My colleague and chair, Senator Murray, is correct, and I
concur with these changes.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Specialist Matthew w. ramsey
Mr. BENNET. M. President, it is with a heavy heart that I honor the
life and heroic service of SPC Matthew W. Ramsey. Specialist Ramsey,
assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, based in Fort Campbell, KY,
died on November 29, 2010, of injuries sustained when his unit faced
small arms fire. Specialist Ramsey was serving in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. He was 20 years
old.
A native of Quartz Hill, CA, Specialist Ramsey graduated from Quartz
Hill High School in 2008 and enlisted in the Army. He served two tours
of duty in Afghanistan, both with decoration. Among many other awards,
Specialist Ramsey earned the National Defense Service Medal, the Global
War on Terrorism Medal, and the NATO Medal.
During over 2 years of service, Specialist Ramsey distinguished
himself through his courage, dedication to duty, and unremitting
commitment to family. Shortly after enlistment, Specialist Ramsey
learned from his wife that he was to become a father. He saw the Army
as a path to attaining a bright future for his new family. His wife,
Mirella, is expecting a second child in early 2011.
Specialist Ramsey worked on the front lines of battle, serving in the
most dangerous areas of Afghanistan. He is remembered by those who knew
him as a consummate professional with an unending commitment to
excellence. His family remembers him as a dedicated son, husband, and
father.
Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of
life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.''
Specialist Ramsey's service was in keeping with this sentiment by
selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He
lived with a sense of the highest honorable purpose.
At substantial personal risk, he braved the chaos of combat zones
throughout Afghanistan. And though his fate on the battlefield was
uncertain, he pushed forward, protecting America's citizens, her
safety, and the freedoms we hold dear. For his service and the lives he
touched, Specialist Ramsey will forever be remembered as one of our
country's bravest.
To Wayne and Melissa, Specialist Ramsey's parents, Mirella, his wife,
Zachary, his son, and his entire family I cannot imagine the sorrow you
must be feeling. I hope that, in time, the pain of your loss will be
eased by your pride in Matthew's service and by your knowledge that his
country will never forget him. We are humbled by his service and his
sacrifice.
Sergeant First Class James E. Thode
Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I honor the life and
heroic service of SFC James E. Thode. Sergeant Thode, assigned to the
118th Engineer Company, 1457th Engineer Battalion, Army National Guard,
died on December 2, 2010, from injuries he sustained when an improvised
explosive device detonated near his patrol. He was serving in support
of Operation Enduring Freedom in Khost Province, Afghanistan. He was 45
years old.
A native of Kirtland, NM, Sergeant Thode graduated from Catalina High
School, in Tucson, AZ, and the University of Arizona. Sergeant Thode
served as an officer in the Farmington, New Mexico, police department
for 14 years. He was a senior member of the SWAT team and also served
in the Army National Guard, deploying for tours in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
During his years of service, Sergeant Thode distinguished himself
through his courage, dedication to duty, and willingness to take on any
job. Fellow soldiers respected his intensity, and they relied heavily
on his leadership. Sergeant Thode was awarded numerous medals and
awards, including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Army
Commendation Medal, two Army Achievement Medals, and the Army Good
Conduct Medal.
Sergeant Thode worked on the front lines of battle, serving in the
most dangerous areas of Afghanistan. He is remembered by those who knew
him as a consummate professional with an unending commitment to
excellence. Friends at the Farmington Police Department note that he
was beloved by his colleagues. They remember Sergeant Thode as an
effective manager who led by example.
Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of
life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Sergeant
Thode's service was in keeping with this sentiment--by selflessly
putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived with a
sense of the highest honorable purpose.
Sergeant Thode braved the chaos of combat zone throughout Iraq and
Afghanistan. And though his fate on the battlefield was uncertain, he
pushed forward, protecting America's citizens, her safety, and the
freedoms we hold dear. For his service and the lives he touched,
Sergeant Thode will forever be remembered as one of our country's
bravest.
To Sergeant Thode's entire family--I cannot imagine the sorrow you
must be feeling. I hope that, in time, the pain of your loss will be
eased by your pride in James's service and by your knowledge that his
country will never forget him. We are humbled by his service and his
sacrifice.
____________________
REMEMBERING CONGRESSMAN STEPHEN SOLARZ
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend
and former colleague of mine, former Congressman Stephen Solarz, who
passed away late last month at the age of 70. I would like to take this
moment to convey my heartfelt condolences to
[[Page 22371]]
Stephen's wife, Nina, the rest of his family, and everyone else who
knew, worked with, and enjoyed Stephen during his life.
Stephen and I were both elected to the House of Representatives for
the first time in 1974, members of a historic class of 75 Democratic
freshmen who came to Washington in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
Stephen remained a stalwart of the House, serving the people of his
Brooklyn-based congressional district with distinction for nearly two
decades.
Throughout his tenure in Congress, Stephen was always attentive to
the needs of his constituents, even going so far as to nickname himself
``Representative Pothole'' for his work on local issues. But in spite
of this, Stephen's tenure was perhaps most clearly defined by his work
on foreign policy issues. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee throughout his nine terms, Stephen demonstrated a strong and
abiding passion for world affairs. Indeed, during his first month in
office, Stephen went on an 18-day congressional delegation trip to the
Middle East, meeting with the leaders of Israel, Syria, Jordan, and
Egypt.
Beginning in 1979, Stephen took on some important leadership
positions within the committee, serving first as chairman of the
Subcommittee on African Affairs, and subsequently as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs. During that time, Stephen
was absolutely committed to ensuring that human rights and respect for
the rule of law remained key pillars of U.S. policy in those regions.
He was an uncompromising supporter of sanctions against the apartheid
regime in South Africa; one of Congress's most vocal and persistent
critics of the authoritarian government led by Ferdinand Marcos in the
Philippines; and a tireless advocate of peace in Cambodia. Stephen was
also a strong proponent of diplomacy and engagement, becoming the first
United States Congressman to visit North Korea in nearly three decades
in 1980. And perhaps just as significantly, Stephen was a committed
defender of the House of Representatives who worked extremely hard to
carve out a more prominent place for that body in foreign policy
discussions.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee myself, I had
the opportunity to work with Stephen on a number of occasions. And I
must say that I was consistently impressed by Stephen's tenacity,
intelligence, and commitment to justice and democracy. In nearly
everything he did as a Member of Congress, Stephen was always well-
prepared, knew the issues inside and out, and was not afraid to
challenge those with whom he disagreed. That is the Stephen Solarz that
my colleagues and I got to know over the years, and that is, in my
view, the kind of Congressman Stephen will most be remembered as.
Once again, I would like to express my sincere condolences to
Stephen's family and all those individuals who, like me, had the
privilege of knowing him over the years. And I take this opportunity to
thank Stephen for his many years of service to this country and his
tireless efforts to create a more just and peaceful world.
____________________
REMEMBERING RICHARD HOLBROOKE
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I pay
tribute to the memory of my friend Richard Holbrooke, who passed away
earlier this week. Richard was a masterful diplomat who brought his
extraordinary skills to bear on some of the thorniest issues in U.S.
foreign policy. Every step of the way, from his tremendous
accomplishments at the Dayton Accords to his work as U.S. Special Envoy
for Afghanistan and Pakistan, he showed his deep commitment to our
country, and to serving the greater good the world over.
I came to know Richard when we travelled to Africa together in 1999,
when he was serving as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He had
never been to Africa before, and yet on the trip he was able to
thoroughly grasp the complex issues facing the continent immediately.
His brilliance was apparent, and it enabled him to identify emerging
issues quickly and push for critical action. On that trip our purpose
was to focus on the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we
also saw the incredible devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis firsthand.
Richard called then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and told him that
the Security Council needed to address AIDS directly. When the
Secretary-General responded that the Security Council only addressed
security issues, Richard replied that this was, indeed, a security
issue. He was right, and the Security Council's subsequent discussion
was a turning point as the world community began to understand the
depth and severity of the crisis on the African continent.
In the years since, Richard always made time to discuss foreign
policy issues with me, and he always truly listened and wanted to
understand my point of view, even when we disagreed. This was
especially true of his work on Afghanistan and Pakistan. We didn't
always see eye to eye about U.S. policy in the region, but he always
reached out to me and solicited my views, and I was so appreciative of
that. Those efforts on his part said volumes about him and his
thoughtful approach to the complex issues he worked on with such
commitment and such skill.
We had breakfast the morning after one of his last trips. I could see
the toll his work was taking on him, but he was terrific to be with as
usual. He was completely engaging and interested in my perspective, yet
still managed to work the whole room, multitasking as always.
Richard Holbrooke was an extraordinary man of many talents who spent
his life building a better, more just world for us all. His many
accomplishments will live on as a testament to his profound commitment
to our nation and to a life of public service. But for me, I will
simply miss him as a friend.
____________________
THANKING STAFF
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you to the
wonderful staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Earlier this
week I had the privilege of chairing my final hearing in that
committee, and I want to take a moment to extend my thanks and
gratitude to those who have made this committee run so smoothly and
professionally over the years.
Bertie Bowman's tenure here dates back to Senator Fulbright, and his
extraordinary career, as the longest serving African American on
Capitol Hill, speaks volumes about his character and commitment. It has
been a true pleasure seeing Bertie at every hearing and it is largely
thanks to his efforts, that our hearings run so smoothly.
Meg Murphy, the committee's protocol and foreign travel coordinator,
has done a truly wonderful job ensuring that our travel, business
meetings, and committee coffees always went off without a hitch. Her
phenomenal attention to detail and thoroughness, in addition to her
dedication and good humor has made her an invaluable asset to the
committee.
I would also like to recognize Samantha Hamilton, Susan Oursler, as
well as Gail Coppage for their hard work and dedication.
Last, I would like to thank Frank Lowenstein, staff director of the
committee, whom I have gotten to know over the years, including during
a trip we took together to the Middle East. I had the privilege of
knowing Frank's father, Al Lowenstein, and I can say without a doubt
how proud he would be of his son Frank.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
MILWAUKEE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate
the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council, MBCTC, on the
occasion of their 100th anniversary.
For the past 100 years the MBCTC has literally built Milwaukee. Many
of today's notable Milwaukee landmarks and buildings like the Petit
National Ice Center, the Performing Arts Center, the Bradley Center,
County Stadium, then Miller Park, Potawatomi
[[Page 22372]]
Bingo and Casino, the Port Washington and Elm Road Generating Stations
and most recently the Marquette Interchange are owed to the tireless
work of members of the MBCTC.
Not only has the MBCTC truly had a hand in shaping the Milwaukee we
know and love today but it has done so while tending to its membership,
the men and women of the building trades who make it all possible. The
MBCTC remains true to its founding principles to represent its members
in the building and construction trades for justice on the job, better
wages and never sacrificing quality for its customers. For a century,
their true commitment to members and their families as well as to our
Milwaukee community has stood on solid foundation.
On behalf of our State and Nation, I join this centennial celebration
in recognition of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades
Council. Let us honor their hard work and long history of building up
Milwaukee into a great place to visit, work, live and raise a
family.
____________________
ADDRESSING THE NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I wish to introduce to you
one of my constituents, Lawrence ``Rip'' Kirby of Rutland, VT, who has
written to me outlining his ideas on how Congress can and should
address our $13.8 trillion national debt in a fair and sensible way. I
am pleased the citizens of Vermont are engaged on this issue, which is
of critical importance to not only our State, but indeed the Nation.
The decisions that we make on the Senate floor today will impact
generations of Americans to come. That is why I would like to share
with you what Mr. Kirby wrote:
To reduce the deficit and accumulated debt we must
understand their root causes and history:
Short-term problem: The near-collapse of the economy was
arrested by means of deficit spending, including corporate
bailouts, extended unemployment benefits, and stimulus
initiatives. While arguably necessary to stave off an even
worse catastrophe, these measures have added to the deficit
and the debt.
Solution(s): Our emphasis should not be on recovery of sunk
costs but on prevention of future disasters. Break up ``too
large to fail'' businesses through anti-trust laws. Regulate
imprudent, secretive, or unfathomable financial arrangements
like derivatives. Increase regulated safety margins like
reserve requirements for banks and loan limits based on
borrower credit ratings. Eliminate conflicts of interest like
permitting bond rating agencies to have a financial stake in
the companies they rate.
Medium-term problem: Our wars overseas have been funded by
massive deficits with no real strategy for repayment. The
unexpected length and intractability of these conflicts
exacerbates the problem.
Solution(s): Stop the financial bleeding and provide a
financial transfusion. To stop the bleeding we must get out
of these conflicts within a short time (two years at most).
Continue intelligence-gathering and maintain air power, but
get the boots off the ground. To provide a transfusion, enact
a temporary and progressive ``war surtax'' with a sunset
provision.
Long-term problem: Entitlement spending (Medicare, Social
Security, etc.) has exceeded its funding as America's
longevity has climbed faster than its typical retirement age
without tax increases to keep up. The mass retirement of the
baby boomers will aggravate this problem as they become
greater consumers of entitlements and a lesser source of
taxes.
Solution(s): Recognize that longevity is really an
advantage, and make better use of people's lengthening
ability to work and to contribute. In short, this means
gradually raising the age of entitlement eligibility. We must
also end the regressive and irrational Social Security tax
exemption for earnings above $108,000.
Long term problem: Our K-12 school system has deteriorated
while foreign students have surged ahead in critical subjects
like math, science, and language skills. The underlying cause
is debated endlessly, but I believe we have replaced the hard
work of learning with trendy feel-good initiatives that
represent the path of least resistance for both educators and
students. We also underfund education, thereby encouraging
the employment of second-rate teachers, curricula, and
facilities. This exacerbates the deficit by degrading our tax
base as emerging generations of Americans are prepared for
only menial jobs paying low wages.
Solution(s): Stop experimenting and do what works--get back
to basics and pay for excellence. Reward teachers who
cultivate competence. Emphasize math, science, and language
skills, as well as less tangible, but important skills like
inquiry and logic. Recognize sports programs as a way to
teach critical social skills, not as a career path. Treat
standardized testing as a means to excellence, not as an end
in itself. And finally, forget self esteem--it will come on
its own when it is earned.''
Lawrence ``Rip'' Kirby
Rutland, Vt.
Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to share with you these
words of wisdom from an average Vermonter. I hope my colleagues in the
Senate take note of Mr. Kirby's sage advice.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HARBOR FARM
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, every holiday season, Americans head
to stores in droves to buy the perfect gift for their loved ones or
friends during the holiday season. Many will visit small businesses,
such as gift shops and local retailers, which offer a variety of
products. There is one such store in my home State of Maine, Harbor
Farm, that helps keep the Christmas spirit alive year round through a
variety of products that celebrate the season.
Harbor Farm is located on Little Deer Isle, a tiny island located off
Maine's coast in Penobscot Bay. The island is both a picturesque summer
vacationland as well as the year-round home to 300 residents. And
Harbor Farm caters to locals and tourists alike with a variety of
regional and international gifts, from candles to apparel and most
everything in between. The store also carries gifts made by another
local small business, the Deer Isle Granite Company, including
beautiful clocks in the shape of the State of Maine as well as cutting
boards and coasters.
Additionally, Harbor Farm has a unique ``Christmas Room,'' with a
plethora of thoughtful and creative goods and wares. More than simply
holiday-themed gifts, the Christmas Room features exceptional items
inspired by Maine, including blueberry jewelry made using blue sponge
coral as well as moose and snowman ornaments. Harbor Farm also offers
delightful Christmas wreaths, made from Maine balsam and beautifully
decorated with traditional cones, berries, and bows. In that same vein,
the store also sells a number of centerpieces of cedar, balsam, and
pine, adorned with candles and faux fruits. Harbor Farm readily ships
these special holiday gifts and decorations across the country to a
growing list of customers each year.
Another item Harbor Farm specializes in is remarkable tile. The
company offers customers a wide array of beautiful tile from 17 States
and 17 countries for any room in the home. The designs range from
delicately painted lighthouses and landscapes to flowers and farmyards.
The staff at Harbor Farm takes the time to assist clients looking to
mix tiles for a more elegant and eclectic visual display.
It is evident that the employees of Harbor Farm take great pains to
offer their customers high quality items for a broad swath of uses in
everyday life. From its reproductions of early American furniture to
pottery to clothing accessories, Harbor Farm is a quintessential New
England gift shop that has something for everyone. I thank everyone at
Harbor Farm for their dedicated efforts to provide shoppers with a
pleasant experience, and I wish them many years of success.
____________________
REMEMBERING THE VENERABLE ROS MEY
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today I commemorate the
extraordinary life of Venerable Ros Mey, the head Buddhist monk and
president of the Wat Thormikaram Khmer Temple in Providence. Although
he passed away on December 12, 2010, at age 85, his teachings of peace
will live on in the vibrant Cambodian community of Rhode Island in
which he served.
Venerable Mey was ordained as a Buddhist monk in Providence at age 62
and dedicated himself to his faith, his congregation, and to praying
for peace in Cambodia with his fellow worshipers.
Venerable Mey's journey to Rhode Island was a perilous one. He and
his family endured forced labor under the
[[Page 22373]]
Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia from 1975 until their escape to Thailand
four years later. They made their way to Rhode Island as part of the
first wave of refugees from Cambodia. Only several thousand of the
80,000 monks in Cambodia survived the Khmer Rouge.
Venerable Mey turned the adversity he experienced into peaceful
teachings by dedicating his life to the Cambodian community in our
State. In 1998 he became head monk and president, succeeding the
Venerable Maha Ghosananda, also a renowned peace activist. Venerable
Mey was a driving force behind a new worship hall at the Wat
Thormikaram Temple, which is a spiritual center for Cambodian Buddhists
in Rhode Island and across the Nation.
His surviving family, the thousands of Rhode Islanders whose weddings
and births he officiated, the Cambodian community, and the people of
our State will remember his teachings of peace.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 9:33 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, without amendment:
S. 1774. An act for the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.
S. 3199. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act
regarding early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of
hearing loss.
S. 3386. An act to protect consumers for certain aggressive
sales tactics on the Internet.
S. 4010. An act for the relief of Shigeru Yamada.
Enrolled Bills Signed
The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following
enrolled bills:
S. 1275. An act to establish a National Foundation on
Physical Fitness and Sports to carry out activities to
support and supplement the mission of the President's Council
on Physical Fitness and Sports.
S. 1448. An act to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to
authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes
of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute
Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust land.
S. 1609. An act to authorize a single fisheries cooperative
for the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands longline catcher
processor subsector, and for other purposes.
S. 2906. An act to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to
modify a provision relating to leases involving certain
Indian tribes.
S. 3794. An act to amend chapter 5 of title 40, United
States Code, to include organizations whose membership
comprises substantially veterans as recipient organizations
for the donation of Federal surplus personal property through
State agencies.
S. 3984. An act to amend and extend the Museum and Library
Services Act, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1061. An act to transfer certain land to the United
States to be held in trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, to place
land into trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 6278. An act to amend the National Children's Island
Act of 1995 to expand allowable uses for Kingman and Heritage
Islands by the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Inouye).
____
At 10:05 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 6517. An act to extend trade adjustment assistance and
certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily
certain rates of duty, and for other purposes.
____
At 10:32 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, 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. 5446. An Act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa,
Florida, as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
H.R. 5493. An Act to provide for the furnishing of statues
by the District of Columbia and territories and possessions
of the United States for display in Statuary Hall in the
United States Capitol.
H.R. 6205. An Act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx,
New York, as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.
H.R. 6494. An Act to amend the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to improve the
Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bills, without amendment:
S. 30. An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
prohibit manipulation of caller identification information.
S. 3036. An Act to establish the National Alzheimer's
Project.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolutions, without amendment:
S. Con. Res. 72. Concurrent resolution recognizing the 45th
anniversary of the White House Fellows Program.
S. Con. Res. 77. Concurrent resolution to provide for the
approval of final regulations issued by the Office of
Compliance to implement the Veterans Employment Opportunities
Act of 1998 that apply to certain legislative branch
employing offices and their covered employees.
The message also announced that the House agrees to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2965) entitled ``An Act to amend the Small
Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research
Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for
other purposes'', with an amendment.
enrolled bill signed
At 11:13 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bill:
S. 1405. An act to redesignate the Longfellow National
Historic Site, Massachusetts, as the ``Longfellow House-
Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.
The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Inouye).
____
At 1:14 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4337) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify certain rules applicable to
regulated investment companies, and for other purposes.
____
At 4:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, without amendment:
S. 841. An act to direct the Secretary of Transportation to
study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that
provides for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians
of motor vehicle operation.
S. 3447. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve educational assistance for veterans who served in the
Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, and for other
purposes.
S. 3860. An act to require reports on the management of
Arlington National Cemetery.
S. 4005. An act to amend title 28, United States Code, to
prevent the proceeds or instrumentalities of foreign crime
located in the United States from being shielded from foreign
forfeiture proceedings.
The message further announced that the House agrees to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2941) to reauthorize and enhance
Johanna's Law to increase public awareness and knowledge with respect
to gynecologic cancers.
The message also announced that the House agrees to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6198) to amend title 11 of the United
States Code to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.
Enrolled Bills Signed
At 5:53 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has
signed the following enrolled bills:
S. 1774. An act for the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.
S. 4010. An act for the relief of Shigeru Yamada.
The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Inouye).
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following joint resolution was read the first time:
[[Page 22374]]
S.J. Res. 42. Joint resolution to extend the continuing
resolution until February 18, 2011.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, December 16,
2010, she had presented to the President of the United States the
following enrolled bills:
S. 1275. An act to establish a National Foundation on
Physical Fitness and Sports to carry out activities to
support and supplement the mission of the President's Council
on Physical Fitness and Sports.
S. 1448. An act to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to
authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes
of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute
Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust land.
S. 1609. An act to authorize a single fisheries cooperative
for the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands longline catcher
processor subsector, and for other purposes.
S. 2906. An act to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to
modify a provision relating to leases involving certain
Indian tribes.
S. 3794. An act to amend chapter 5 of title 40, United
States Code, to include organizations whose membership
comprises substantially veterans as recipient organizations
for the donations of Federal surplus personal property
through State Agencies.
S. 3984. An act to amend and extend the Museum and Library
Services Act, 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-8515. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A340-500 and A340-600 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)
(Docket No. FAA-2010-1110)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8516. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM
700 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0862))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-8517. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-
AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2010-1136)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8518. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France
(ECF) Model SA330F, G, and J; and AS332C, L, L1, and L2
Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0670))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-8519. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-
AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2010-1136)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8520. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney
PW4000 Series Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
FAA-2010-0725)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8521. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2007-28348))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-8522. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; CENTRAIR Models
101, 101A, 101P, and 101AP Gliders'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. FAA-2010-0735)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8523. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300
B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 Airplanes;
and Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-
622R, and F4-605R'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2009-
1067)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-8524. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Modification of Class B Airspace;
Charlotte, NC'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0049))
received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of
the President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8525. A communication from the Program Analyst, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Head Restraints'' (RIN2127-AK39) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8526. A communication from the Ombudsman, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Brokers of Household Goods Transportation by Motor
Vehicle'' (RIN2126-AA84) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8527. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Waiver of Acceptable Mission Risk
Restriction for Reentry and a Reentry Vehicle'' (14 CFR Part
431) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-8528. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Office of Commercial Space Transportation;
Waiver of Autonomous Reentry Restriction for a Reentry
Vehicle'' (14 CFR Part 431) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8529. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Revisions to the Civil Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Tables'' ((RIN2120-AJ50)(Docket No. FAA-2009-
0237)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-8530. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Revocation of Restricted Areas R-3807
Glencoe, LA, and R-6320 Matagorda, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(FAA-
2010-1014)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on December 13, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-8531. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Using Agency for Restricted
Areas R-4002, R-4005, R-4006 and R-4007; MD'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. FAA-2010-1070)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on December 13, 2010; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-8532. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Fairbanks, Alaska)'' (MB Docket No. 10-81, RM-11600)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
December 10, 2010; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
[[Page 22375]]
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute and an amendment to the title:
H.R. 2868. To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism
against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water
Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the
security of wastewater treatment works, and for other
purposes (Rept. No. 111-370).
By Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, with
amendments:
S. 3903. A bill to authorize leases of up to 99 years for
lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo (Rept. No. 111-
371).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs:
Report to accompany H.R. 2142, To require quarterly
performance assessments of Government programs for purposes
of assessing agency performance and improvement, and to
establish agency performance improvement officers and the
Performance Improvement Council (Rept. No. 111-372).
By Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, without amendment:
S. 3874. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Act to reduce
lead in drinking water.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. 4034. A bill to support United States manufacturing by
providing rules and guidance, waiver notices, and
departmental and agency actions applicable to the domestic
content standards of Federal grants administered by the
Department of Transportation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. REED (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 4035. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide grants for community-based mental health
infrastructure improvement; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DODD:
S. 4036. A bill to clarify the National Credit Union
Administration authority to make stabilization fund
expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury; considered
and passed.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Menendez, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr.
Tester):
S. 4037. A bill to impose a criminal penalty for
unauthorized recording or distribution of images produced
using advanced imaging technology during screenings of
individuals at airports and upon entry to Federal buildings,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Reed):
S. 4038. A bill to increase access to community behavioral
health services for all Americans and to improve Medicaid
reimbursement for community behavioral health services; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 4039. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to improve education and prevention related to campus sexual
violence, intimate partner violence, and stalking; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Kyl, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
LeMieux, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Isakson, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Johanns, and Mr. Roberts):
S.J. Res. 42. A joint resolution to extend the continuing
resolution until February 1, 2011; read the first time.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, and
Ms. Murkowski):
S. Res. 702. A resolution recognizing the work and
importance of special education teachers; considered and
agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 471
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 471, a bill to amend the
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 to require the Statistics
Commissioner to collect information from coeducational secondary
schools on such schools' athletic programs, and for other purposes.
S. 1415
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. McCaskill) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1415, a bill to amend
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to ensure that
absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters are aware of their
voting rights and have a genuine opportunity to register to vote and
have their absentee ballots cast and counted, and for other purposes.
S. 3221
At the request of Mr. Pryor, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
3221, a bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 to extend the suspension of limitation on the period for which
certain borrowers are eligible for guaranteed assistance.
S. 3237
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3237, a bill to award a
Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the Civil Air
Patrol.
S. 3641
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3641, a bill to
create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote the protection
and conservation of United States ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
ecosystems, and for other purposes.
S. 3804
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. McCaskill) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3804, a bill to combat
online infringement, and for other purposes.
S. 3876
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3876, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the alternative fuel
vehicle refueling property credit.
S. 4020
At the request of Mr. Wicker, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Texas
(Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Brown) were
added as cosponsors of S. 4020, a bill to protect 10th Amendment rights
by providing special standing for State government officials to
challenge proposed regulations, and for other purposes.
S. 4023
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the names of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and
the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) were added as cosponsors of
S. 4023, a bill to provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense
policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell''.
S. CON. RES. 71
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 71, a
concurrent resolution recognizing the United States national interest
in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass
atrocities against civilians, and supporting and encouraging efforts to
develop a whole of government approach to prevent and mitigate such
acts.
AMENDMENT NO. 4807
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4807
intended to be proposed to H.R. 3082, a bill making appropriations for
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for
[[Page 22376]]
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REED (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 4035. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
grants for community-based mental health infrastructure improvement; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague,
Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure
Improvements Act.
Multiple research studies have shown that people with mental illness
are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart
disease and diabetes and are more likely to die sooner than healthy
individuals--in some instances up to 25 years sooner. In order to
address this troubling trend, I authored language in the new health
insurance reform law to ensure that individuals with multiple co-
occurring mental, behavioral, and physical health conditions have
access to a coordinated and integrated health care delivery system.
Under this provision, Community Mental Health Centers are authorized to
provide patients with mental, behavioral, and primary health care all
in one location.
Recently, I was pleased to learn that two Community Mental Health
Centers in Rhode Island received funding to begin to offer these co-
located services. However, many Community Mental Health Centers are
unable to provide this broader range of services due to the limited
physical space they occupy. The Community-Based Mental Health
Infrastructure Improvements Act would authorize grants to states for
the construction and modernization of these facilities. Indeed, for
some Community Mental Health Centers, facility updates are the first
step to enhancing patient care.
I am also pleased that this legislation has been included in a
broader piece of legislation that I joined Senator Stabenow in
introducing today, the Excellence in Mental Health Act. As a member of
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will
continue to work to include these important initiatives in legislation
that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, SAMHSA, programs.
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. 4035
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 ``Community-Based Mental
Health Infrastructure Improvements Act''.
SEC. 2. COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENT.
Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART H--COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
``SEC. 560. GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary may award grants to
eligible entities to expend funds for the construction or
modernization of facilities used to provide mental health and
substance abuse services to individuals.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means--
``(1) a State that is the recipient of a Community Mental
Health Services Block Grant under subpart I of part B of
title XIX and a Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant under subpart II of such part; or
``(2) an Indian tribe or a tribal organization (as such
terms are defined in sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act).
``(c) Application.--A eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing--
``(1) a plan for the construction or modernization of
facilities used to provide mental health and substance abuse
services to individuals that--
``(A) designates a single State or tribal agency as the
sole agency for the supervision and administration of the
grant;
``(B) contains satisfactory evidence that such agency so
designated will have the authority to carry out the plan;
``(C) provides for the designation of an advisory council,
which shall include representatives of nongovernmental
organizations or groups, and of the relevant State or tribal
agencies, that aided in the development of the plan and that
will implement and monitor any grant awarded to the eligible
entity under this section;
``(D) in the case of an eligible entity that is a State,
includes a copy of the State plan under section 1912(b) and
section 1932(b);
``(E)(i) includes a listing of the projects to be funded by
the grant; and
``(ii) in the case of an eligible entity that is a State,
explains how each listed project helps the State in
accomplishing its goals and objectives under the Community
Mental Health Services Block Grant under subpart I of part B
of title XIX and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant under subpart II of such part;
``(F) includes assurances that the facilities will be used
for a period of not less than 10 years for the provision of
community-based mental health or substance abuse services for
those who cannot pay for such services, subject to subsection
(e); and
``(G) in the case of a facility that is not a public
facility, includes the name and executive director of the
entity who will provide services in the facility; and
``(2) with respect to each construction or modernization
project described in the application--
``(A) a description of the site for the project;
``(B) plans and specifications for the project and State or
tribal approval for the plans and specifications;
``(C) assurance that the title for the site is or will be
vested with either the public entity or private nonprofit
entity who will provide the services in the facility;
``(D) assurance that adequate financial resources will be
available for the construction or major rehabilitation of the
project and for the maintenance and operation of the
facility;
``(E) estimates of the cost of the project; and
``(F) the estimated length of time for completion of the
project.
``(d) Subgrants by States.--
``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this
section may award a subgrant to a qualified community program
(as such term is used in section 1913(b)(1)).
``(2) Use of funds.--Subgrants awarded pursuant to
paragraph (1) may be used for activities such as--
``(A) the construction, expansion, and modernization of
facilities used to provide mental health and substance abuse
services to individuals;
``(B) acquiring and leasing facilities and equipment
(including paying the costs of amortizing the principal of,
and paying the interest on, loans for such facilities and
equipment) to support or further the operation of the
subgrantee;
``(C) the construction and structural modification
(including equipment acquisition) of facilities to permit the
integrated delivery of behavioral health and primary care of
specialty medical services to individuals with co-occurring
mental illnesses and chronic medical or surgical diseases at
a single service site; and
``(D) acquiring information technology required to
accommodate the clinical needs of primary and specialty care
professionals.
``(3) Limitation.--Not to exceed 15 percent of grant funds
may be used for activities described in paragraph (2)(D).
``(e) Request To Transfer Obligation.--An eligible entity
that receives a grant under this section may submit a request
to the Secretary for permission to transfer the 10-year
obligation of facility use, as described in subsection
(c)(1)(F), to another facility.
``(f) Agreement to Federal Share.--As a condition of
receipt of a grant under this section, an eligible entity
shall agree, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the
entity in carrying out the activities for which such grant is
awarded, that the entity will make available non-Federal
contributions (which may include State or local funds, or
funds from the qualified community program) in an amount
equal to not less than $1 for every $1 of Federal funds
provided under the grant.
``(g) Reporting.--
``(1) Reporting by states.--During the 10-year period
referred to in subsection (c)(1)(F), the Secretary shall
require that a State that receives a grant under this section
submit, as part of the report of the State required under the
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant under subpart I
of part B of title XIX and the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant under subpart II of such part, a
description of the progress on--
``(A) the projects carried out pursuant to the grant under
this section; and
``(B) the assurances that the facilities involved continue
to be used for the purpose
[[Page 22377]]
for which they were funded under such grant during such 10-
year period.
``(2) Reporting by indian tribes and tribal
organizations.--The Secretary shall establish reporting
requirements for Indian tribes and tribal organizations that
receive a grant under this section. Such reporting
requirements shall include that such Indian tribe or tribal
organization provide a description of the progress on--
``(A) the projects carried out pursuant to the grant under
this section; and
``(B) the assurances that the facilities involved continue
to be used for the purpose for which they were funded under
such grant during the 10-year period referred to in
subsection (c)(1)(F).
``(h) Failure To Meet Obligations.--
``(1) In general.--If an eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section fails to meet any of the obligations
of the entity required under this section, the Secretary
shall take appropriate steps, which may include--
``(A) requiring that the entity return the unused portion
of the funds awarded under this section for the projects that
are incomplete; and
``(B) extending the length of time that the entity must
ensure that the facility involved is used for the purposes
for which it is intended, as described in subsection
(c)(1)(F).
``(2) Hearing.--Prior to requesting the return of the funds
under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall provide the
entity notice and opportunity for a hearing.
``(i) Collaboration.--The Secretary may establish
intergovernmental and interdepartmental memorandums of
agreement as necessary to carry out this section.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2010 and such sums as may be necessary for each
of fiscal years 2011 through 2013.''.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ensign, Mr. LeMieux, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Wicker, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Roberts):
S.J. Res. 42. A joint resolution to extend the continuing resolution
until February 1, 2011; read the first time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION UNTIL
FEBRUARY 18, 2011.
The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-
242) is amended by striking the date specified in section
106(3) and inserting ``February 18, 2011''.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 702--RECOGNIZING THE WORK AND IMPORTANCE OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION TEACHERS
Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Murkowski)
submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 702
Whereas, in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that children
with disabilities have the same right to receive a quality
education in the public schools as their nondisabled peers
and, in 1975, the Congress passed Public Law 94-142
guaranteeing students with disabilities the right to a free
appropriate public education;
Whereas, according to the Department of Education,
approximately 6,600,000 children (roughly 13 percent of all
school-aged children) receive special education services;
Whereas there are over 370,000 highly qualified special
education teachers in the United States;
Whereas the work of special education teachers requires
special education teachers to be able to interact and teach
students with specific learning disabilities, hearing
impairments, speech or language impairments, orthopedic
impairments, visual impairments, autism, combined deafness
and blindness, traumatic brain injury, and other health
impairments;
Whereas special education teachers--
(1) are dedicated;
(2) possess the ability to understand the needs of a
diverse group of students;
(3) have the capacity to use innovative teaching methods
tailored to a unique group of students; and
(4) understand the differences of the children in their
care;
Whereas special education teachers must have the ability to
interact and coordinate with a child's parents or legal
guardians, social workers, school psychologists, occupational
and physical therapists, and school administrators, as well
as other educators to provide the best quality education for
their students;
Whereas special education teachers help to develop an
individualized education program for every special education
student based on the needs and abilities of the student; and
Whereas special education teachers dedicate themselves to
preparing special education students for success in school
and beyond: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That Congress--
(1) recognizes the amount of work required to be a special
education teacher; and
(2) commends special education teachers for their
sacrifices and dedication to preparing individuals with
special needs for high school graduation, college success,
and rewarding careers.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 4814. Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Barrasso)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
Treaty Doc. 111-5, Treaty between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the
Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,
signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, with Protocol; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4815. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4805 submitted by Mr. Inouye and
intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 3082, making
appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4816. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3454, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 4817. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4805 submitted by Mr. Inouye and
intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 3082, making
appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4818. Mr. DORGAN (for Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr.
Carper, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. Hagan, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Tester, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Webb,
and Mr. Levin)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5809,
to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and
modify provisions relating to the diesel emissions reduction
program.
SA 4819. Mr. DORGAN (for Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr.
Carper)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5809, supra.
SA 4820. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Ensign, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Thune, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Cornyn, and
Mr. Coburn) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill H.R. 3082, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4821. Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Murkowski)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 3082, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4822. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R.
5281, to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and
improve certain provisions relating to the removal of
litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal
courts, and for other purposes.
SA 4823. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA
4822 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 5281, supra.
SA 4824. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R.
5281, supra.
SA 4825. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA
4824 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 5281, supra.
SA 4826. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA
4825 proposed by Mr. Reid to the amendment SA 4824 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 5281, supra.
SA 4827. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R.
2965, to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the
Small Business Innovation Research Program and the
[[Page 22378]]
Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other
purposes.
SA 4828. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA
4827 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2965, supra.
SA 4829. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R.
2965, supra.
SA 4830. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA
4829 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2965, supra.
SA 4831. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA
4830 proposed by Mr. Reid to the amendment SA 4829 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2965, supra.
SA 4832. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 3082, making appropriations
for military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 4814. Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Barrasso) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to Treaty Doc. 111-5, Treaty
between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on
Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms, signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, with Protocol; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
In the preamble to the New START Treaty, strike
``Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between
strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that
this interrelationship will become more important as
strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current
strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and
effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the
Parties,''.
______
SA 4815. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4805 submitted by Mr. Inouye and intended to be proposed
to the bill H.R. 3082, making appropriations for military construction,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1068, between lines 17 and 18, insert the
following:
SEC. 311. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENTS.
Paragraph (10)(A) of section 101 of Public Law 111-226 (124
Stat. 2391) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
(2) in clause (iii)(II), by striking ``2006.'' and
inserting ``2006; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) for State fiscal year 2011, the State will maintain
State support for elementary and secondary education and for
public institutions of higher education (not including
support for capital projects or for research and development
or tuition and fees paid by students), in the aggregate, at a
percentage of the total revenues available to the State that
is equal to or greater than the total percentage provided for
such support for State fiscal year 2010.''.
______
SA 4816. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3454, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 836. ADDITIONAL DEFINITION RELATING TO PRODUCTION OF
SPECIALTY METALS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
Section 2533b(m) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) The term `produced', as used in subsections (a) and
(b), means melted, or processed in a manner that results in
physical or chemical property changes that are the equivalent
of melting. The term does not include finishing processes
such as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, tempering,
grinding, or shaving.''.
______
SA 4817. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4805 submitted by Mr. Inouye and intended to be proposed
to the bill H.R. 3082, making appropriations for military construction,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 662, line 6, insert ``Provided further, That none
of the amounts appropriated under this Act may be used to
modify existing policy by providing collective bargaining
rights to screeners at the Transportation Security
Administration'' before the period at the end.
______
SA 4818. Mr. DORGAN (for Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr.
Cardin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Franken, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Tester, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Webb, and Mr.
Levin)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5809, to amend the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and modify provisions relating
to the diesel emissions reduction program; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--Section 791 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16131) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) any private individual or entity that--
``(i) is the owner of record of a diesel vehicle or fleet
operated pursuant to a contract, license, or lease with a
Federal department or agency or an entity described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) meets such timely and appropriate requirements as
the Administrator may establish for vehicle use and for
notice to and approval by the Federal department or agency or
entity described in subparagraph (A) with respect to which
the owner has entered into a contract, license, or lease as
described in clause (i).'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``currently, or has not
been previously,'' after ``that is not'';
(3) by striking paragraph (9);
(4) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9);
(5) in paragraph (9) (as so redesignated), in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``, advanced
truckstop electrification system,''; and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) State.--The term `State' means the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(b) National Grant, Rebate, and Loan Programs.--Section 792
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16132) is
amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``, REBATE,''
after ``GRANT'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``to
provide grants and low-cost revolving loans, as determined by
the Administrator, on a competitive basis, to eligible
entities'' and inserting ``to provide grants, rebates, or
low-cost revolving loans, as determined by the Administrator,
on a competitive basis, to eligible entities, including
through contracts entered into under subsection (e) of this
section,''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``tons of'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(C) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``90'' and inserting ``95'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``10 percent'' and
inserting ``5 percent''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``the
application under subsection (c)'' and inserting ``a
verification application'';
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Expedited process.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall develop a
simplified application process for all applicants under this
section to expedite the provision of funds.
``(B) Requirements.--In developing the expedited process
under subparagraph (A), the Administrator--
``(i) shall take into consideration the special
circumstances affecting small fleet owners; and
``(ii) to avoid duplicative procedures, may require
applicants to include in an application under this section
the results of a competitive bidding process for equipment
and installation.
[[Page 22379]]
``(2) Eligibility.--
``(A) Grants.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this
section, an eligible entity shall submit to the Administrator
an application at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Administrator may require.
``(B) Rebates and low-cost loans.--To be eligible to
receive a rebate or a low-cost loan under this section, an
eligible entity shall submit an application in accordance
with such guidance as the Administrator may establish--
``(i) to the Administrator; or
``(ii) to an entity that has entered into a contract under
subsection (e).'';
(C) in paragraph (3)(G) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A)), by inserting ``in the case of an application relating
to nonroad engines or vehicles,'' before ``a description of
the diesel''; and
(D) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(I) by inserting ``, rebate,'' after ``grant''; and
(II) by inserting ``highest'' after ``shall give'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(iii)--
(I) by striking ``a diesel fleets'' and inserting ``diesel
fleets''; and
(II) by inserting ``construction sites, schools,'' after
``terminals,'';
(iii) in subparagraph (E), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(iv) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(v) by striking subparagraph (G);
(5) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``, rebate,'' after ``grant''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) by striking ``grant or loan provided'' and inserting
``grant, rebate, or loan provided, or contract entered
into,''; and
(ii) by striking ``Federal, State or local law'' and
inserting ``any Federal law, except that this subparagraph
shall not apply to a mandate in a State implementation plan
approved by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Contract Programs.--
``(1) Authority.--In addition to the use of contracting
authority otherwise available to the Administrator, the
Administrator may enter into contracts with eligible
contractors described in paragraph (2) for the administration
of programs for providing rebates or loans, subject to the
requirements of this subtitle.
``(2) Eligible contractors.--The Administrator may enter
into a contract under this subsection with a for-profit or
nonprofit entity that has the capacity--
``(A) to sell diesel vehicles or equipment to, or to
arrange financing for, individuals or entities that own a
diesel vehicle or fleet; or
``(B) to upgrade diesel vehicles or equipment with verified
or Environmental Protection Agency-certified engines or
technologies, or to arrange financing for such upgrades.
``(f) Public Notification.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of the award of a grant, rebate, or loan, the
Administrator shall publish on the website of the
Environmental Protection Agency--
``(1) for rebates and loans provided to the owner of a
diesel vehicle or fleet, the total number and dollar amount
of rebates or loans provided, as well as a breakdown of the
technologies funded through the rebates or loans; and
``(2) for other rebates and loans, and for grants, a
description of each application for which the grant, rebate,
or loan is provided.''.
(c) State Grant, Rebate, and Loan Programs.--Section 793 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16133) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``, REBATE,''
after ``GRANT'';
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, rebate,'' after
``grant'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, rebate,'' after
``grant'';
(4) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), using not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available to carry out this subtitle for a fiscal year, the
Administrator shall provide to each State qualified for an
allocation for the fiscal year an allocation equal to \1/53\
of the funds made available for that fiscal year for
distribution to States under this paragraph.
``(B) Certain territories.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), Guam,
the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall
collectively receive an allocation equal to \1/53\ of the
funds made available for that fiscal year for distribution to
States under this subsection, divided equally among those 4
States.
``(ii) Exception.--If any State described in clause (i)
does not qualify for an allocation under this paragraph, the
share of funds otherwise allocated for that State under
clause (i) shall be reallocated pursuant to subparagraph (C).
``(C) Reallocation.--If any State does not qualify for an
allocation under this paragraph, the share of funds otherwise
allocated for that State under this paragraph shall be
reallocated to each remaining qualified State in an amount
equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
``(i) the proportion that the population of the State bears
to the population of all States described in paragraph (1);
by
``(ii) the amount otherwise allocatable to the
nonqualifying State under this paragraph.'';
(5) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, rebate,'' after
``grant'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, rebates,'' after
``grants'';
(C) in paragraph (3), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``grant or loan provided under this section
may be used'' and inserting ``grant, rebate, or loan provided
under this section shall be used''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Priority.--In providing grants, rebates, and loans
under this section, a State shall use the priorities in
section 792(c)(4).
``(5) Public notification.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of the award of a grant, rebate, or loan by a State,
the State shall publish on the Web site of the State--
``(A) for rebates, grants, and loans provided to the owner
of a diesel vehicle or fleet, the total number and dollar
amount of rebates, grants, or loans provided, as well as a
breakdown of the technologies funded through the rebates,
grants, or loans; and
``(B) for other rebates, grants, and loans, a description
of each application for which the grant, rebate, or loan is
provided.''.
(d) Evaluation and Report.--Section 794(b) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16134(b)) is amended--
(1) in each of paragraphs (2) through (5) by inserting ``,
rebate,'' after ``grant'' each place it appears;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) in the last report sent to Congress before January 1,
2016, an analysis of the need to continue the program,
including an assessment of the size of the vehicle and engine
fleet that could provide benefits from being retrofit under
this program and a description of the number and types of
applications that were not granted in the preceding year.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 797 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16137) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 797. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subtitle $100,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2012 through 2016, to remain available until expended.
``(b) Management and Oversight.--The Administrator may use
not more than 1 percent of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) for each fiscal year for management and
oversight purposes.''.
SEC. 3. AUDIT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 360 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall carry out an audit to identify--
(1) all Federal mobile source clean air grant, rebate, or
low cost revolving loan programs under the authority of the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Secretary of Transportation, or other relevant Federal agency
heads that are designed to address diesel emissions from, or
reduce diesel fuel usage by, diesel engines and vehicles; and
(2) whether, and to what extent, duplication or overlap
among, or gaps between, these Federal mobile source clean air
programs exists.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall--
(1) submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives a copy of the audit under subsection
(a); and
(2) make a copy of the audit under subsection (a) available
on a publicly accessible Internet site.
(c) Offset.--All unobligated amounts provided to carry out
the pilot program under title I of division G of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 814)
under the heading ``miscellaneous items'' are rescinded.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) General Rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
the amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on October
1, 2011.
(b) Exception.--The amendments made by subsections (a)(4)
and (6) and (c)(4) of section 2 shall take effect on the date
of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 4819. Mr. DORGAN (for Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Carper))
proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5809, to amend the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to reauthorize and
[[Page 22380]]
modify provisions relating to the diesel emissions reduction program;
as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and modify provisions
relating to the diesel emissions reduction program.''.
______
SA 4820. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Thune, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Coburn) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 3082,
making appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used by the Federal Communications Commission to adopt or
implement, or otherwise bring or litigate any claim or
otherwise intervene in, join, participate, or support any
claim in any Federal or State court relating to any--
(1) open Internet-based rules, protocols, or standards; or
(2) rules, protocols, or standards regulating the behavior
of broadband Internet access service providers with respect
to discrimination of broadband traffic, network management
practices, managed services, specialized services, or paid
prioritization.
______
SA 4821. Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3082, making
appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of title II of division G, insert the following:
suspension of certain epa action
Sec. ___. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b),
notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.), during the 2-year period beginning on the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency may not take any action under
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) with respect to
any stationary source permitting requirement or any
requirement under section 111 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7411)
relating to carbon dioxide or methane.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) any action under part A of title II of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) relating to the vehicle
emissions standards contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0171 or Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472;
(2) any action relating to the preparation of a report or
the enforcement of a reporting requirement; or
(3) any action relating to the provision of technical
support at the request of a State.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action
taken by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency before the end of the 2-year period described in
subsection (a) shall be considered to make carbon dioxide or
methane a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for any source other than a new
motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, as described in
section 202(a) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)).
______
SA 4822. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5281, to
amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain
provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal
officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes; as
follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The provisions of this Act shall become effective 6 days
after enactment.
______
SA 4823. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4822 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 5281, to amend title 28, United States
Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal
of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts,
and for other purposes; as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``6'' and insert ``5''.
______
SA 4824. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5281, to
amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain
provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal
officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes; as
follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is requested to conduct a
study, nationwide, on the impact of any delay in implementing
the provisions of this Act.
______
SA 4825. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4824 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 5281, to amend title 28, United States
Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal
of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts,
and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
``and include specific data on the impact of families who
would benefit from the Act, and submit the data within 5 days
of enactment.
______
SA 4826. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4825 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the amendment SA 4824 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill
H.R. 5281, to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and
improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation
against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other
purposes; as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``5'' and insert ``2''.
______
SA 4827. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 2965, to
amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business
Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer
Program, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The provisions of this Act shall become effective
immediately.
______
SA 4828. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4827 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2965, to amend the Small Business Act with
respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small
Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes; as
follows:
In the amendment, strike ``immediately'' and insert 5 days.
______
SA 4829. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 2965, to
amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business
Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer
Program, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
The Senate Armed Services Committee is requested to conduct
a study on the impact of implementing these provisions on the
family of military members.
______
SA 4830. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4829
proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill H.R. 2965, to amend the Small Business
Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and
the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes;
as follows:
At the end, add the following:
``and that the study should focus attention on the
dependent children''.
______
SA 4831. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4830 proposed
by Mr. Reid to the amendment SA 4829 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill
H.R. 2965, to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology
Transfer Program, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
``include any data which might impact local communities''.
______
SA 4832. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill H.R. 3082, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
Section 194 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(Public Law 111-117) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``be in effect during
the 1-year period beginning'' and inserting ``take effect'';
and
(2) by striking subsection (c).
[[Page 22381]]
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on December 16, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Shaheen, I ask
unanimous consent that Roger Thoman, a legislative fellow in her
office, be permitted floor privileges during the consideration of the
START Treaty and any votes related to that matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Brent
Breining, a defense legislative fellow assigned to my office, be
granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on treaty No.
111-5, the New START Treaty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor
privileges be granted to CDR Andre Coleman, a Department of Defense
Fellow, who has been extremely helpful in my office, from the
Department of the Navy, during the Senate's consideration in executive
session of Treaty Document 111-5, the New START Treaty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONTROLLING SPENDING
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to note that we just saw a
rather extraordinary event on the floor of the Senate. I first came to
the U.S. Senate in 1987, and I saw the practice of earmarking and
porkbarrel spending grow and grow and grow, to the point where last
November 2 the American people overwhelmingly rejected this practice of
out-of-control spending and debt that we have laid on our children and
our grandchildren.
I also, along with the Republican leader, would like to thank our
members of the Appropriations Committee, who clearly heard that message
and heard the outcry when the American people began to become aware of
what was contemplated to be done in the Congress of the United States.
This outcry reverberated all over America, including the State of
Arizona. And the outcry was finally heard by at least 42 Members on
this side of the aisle.
So I appreciate the fact the majority leader has agreed to a
continuing resolution. But have no doubt as to why it happened. It
happened because the majority leader didn't have the votes. He didn't
have 60 votes that would have then allowed for this monstrosity to be
foisted off on the American people.
So I wish to thank Members here on this side of the aisle, and some
on the other side, who also said they were ready to stand up against
this. But most of all, I wish to thank the American people. I thank
those who made the calls, those who sent the e-mails, those who stood
up and called in to the talk shows all over America and said: We have
had enough. Haven't they listened to the message we were trying to send
on November 2?
So I think this is a great victory for the American people today
because we would have spent $1.1 trillion, at least $8 billion of it,
$8.3 billion, in earmarks that had never had a hearing, that had never
had any scrutiny, had never seen the light of day, but had been put in
by very powerful Members of this body on the Appropriations Committee.
So I would like to extend my gratitude to the American people, the
tea partiers, those who have aligned themselves with the cause to stop
the spending and the mortgaging of our children's and grandchildren's
future. We have amassed a $40,000 debt for every man, woman, and child
in America. The latest commission that reported out clearly indicated
we are on a collision course that could bring down the very economy of
this country.
So I am encouraged greatly by the action taken tonight to do away
with this monstrosity and go back to maybe a one-page continuing
resolution to keep the government in business until the new Members of
Congress and the new Members of this body who were elected last
November can have their voices heard in the deliberations of this body
and how their tax dollars are dispensed with and how those that are
borrowed are dispensed.
I see the Senator from Missouri is about to speak. I wish to thank
her for her efforts in trying to bring about an end to this spending
spree.
So I again wish to express my gratitude to all Members, including
especially the tough decision made by the Republican members of the
Appropriations Committee, to stand so we could stop this thing in its
tracks. I want to thank the American people whose voices were heard in
this body, and that forced the decision that was made today.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
Mr. KIRK. As the most junior people, for those who don't understand
what just happened, did we just win?
Mr. McCAIN. I think there is very little doubt. The majority leader
of the U.S. Senate would not have taken the action he just took if he
didn't have 41 votes to stop this monstrosity.
Mr. KIRK. So for economic conservatives, a 1,924-page bill just died?
Mr. McCAIN. A 1,924-page bill just died.
Mr. KIRK. And 6,000 earmarks will not now move forward?
Mr. McCAIN. Yes. I feel badly about some of those earmarks because I
had so much fun with them.
Mr. KIRK. All of the GOP Senators just signed a letter to the
leadership this morning saying we should not move forward with this as
representatives of the new mandate. It seems that change has come to
the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion bill.
Mr. McCAIN. I have no doubt.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I----
Mr. McCAIN. I am not finished. Do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the regular order.
This may be a seminal moment in the recent history of the Senate.
This may be a seminal moment that stops the practice which has moved
power all to the appropriators in this body--a few--and taken it away
from the rest of us and may return us to an authorizing and then
appropriating process. But most importantly, I think it is a seminal
moment because for the first time since I have been here, we stood up
and said: Enough. Stop.
Mr. KIRK. I congratulate the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you.
Mr. President, I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Arizona
on many things when it comes to appropriations, including that I have
made a decision that earmarking is not a process that I think is the
appropriate way to spend public money. But I am a little confused about
some of the righteous indignation coming from the Republican side of
the aisle about this bill.
The omnibus 2010 they have sitting out there--they are wanting the
American people to think this document came from Democrats. They want
the American people to think that omnibus 2010, all of those pages
sitting there, were done by Democrats. They weren't done by Democrats.
Those pages were done by Democrats and Republicans. Every bit of that
document was drafted by Republicans and Democrats, right down to the
earmarks. And for the minority leader to stand here and act as if this
document is something that is the fault of the Democratic Party when he
well knows he has been involved--I have been involved in terms of
trying to get the number down, and I am glad we succeeded in getting
the number down, as has been referenced, to the Sessions-McCaskill
number, but this
[[Page 22382]]
was a bipartisan effort to get the number down.
The irony is, guess who has earmarks in there. The minority leader,
who just voted on a moratorium for earmarks 10 minutes ago. Did he pull
his earmarks out? No. Did any of the Republicans who voted for a
moratorium on earmarks pull their earmarks out before this bill came to
the floor? We could have eliminated a few pages. So I just don't think
the righteous indignation works.
This was a bipartisan effort, drafted by Republicans and Democrats.
It came to the floor after months of work by Democrats and Republicans.
It was presented to this body in a bipartisan way to vote on. I wasn't
going to vote for it. I am against it. So I think I have a slight bit
of credibility to call these guys on this notion that this is something
that sprung from nowhere out of some back room on the Democratic side
of the aisle. This sprung from a bipartisan effort of the
Appropriations Committee, and every Member on that side of the aisle
knows it. They know it. And they know the earmarks in there--there are
almost $700 million of earmarks in there from people who voted on a
moratorium on earmarks. That is like being half-pregnant.
They should have said, before this bill ever came to the floor--and
they were asked: Would you like your earmarks pulled out? No, no. They
were perfectly willing to vote no and take those earmarks home.
So, on one hand, I would have voted no had we had the vote, and I
said that from day one. I voted no on the omnibus last year. I voted no
on another omnibus because I don't think it is the right way to
appropriate. But this is an equal-opportunity sin. The problems with
this process don't lie on one side of the aisle; they lie on both sides
of the aisle. And the notion that the Republicans are trying to say
this is just about the Democrats is the kind of hypocrisy that gives us
the lowest ratings we have in terms of confidence of the American
people.
We need to own up here. This is not about the Democrats. This is
about both sides of the aisle and a flawed appropriations process that
couldn't get to the floor because of a lot of obstructionism, and when
it finally did get to the floor, it came in one package. But it is not
fair for the Republicans to act as though all those pages came from the
Democratic side of the aisle. They certainly did not.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Missouri
for her work in setting the ceiling that was adhered to. I don't
support this bill, and I didn't ask for any earmarks, and I know the
Senator from Missouri did not ask for any earmarks.
I think there have been a lot of frayed feelings, no question. I
think we all know that even at the levels--and I would say that I think
the appropriators did agree to a number that was passed out here on the
floor. But I think we know that even at those levels, spending is
higher than it should be.
What I would ask is that the Senator from Missouri and I continue to
work together. I know we have an amendment that was going to be a part
of whatever passed to really cap spending and drive it down to the
appropriate level of spending relative to our gross domestic product. I
know it is going to take both sides of the aisle to do that. I know we
have had a deficit reduction commission that has just reported and has
done some great work. The Senator from Illinois, to his credit,
courageously supported that.
So there are a lot of frayed feelings right now. There is a lot that
has been attempted to be done here at the end. I know that has created
a lot of conflict.
The page is going to turn here soon. The year is going to end. The
holidays will come, and we will be able to share a few moments with our
families and then come back. What I hope is that in spite of all that
has happened--and again, I did not support this piece of legislation
for lots of reasons--many, many reasons. I do agree, though, there was
a ceiling that was set. I agree this is going to cause some damage. But
it was the right thing. It was the right thing for this bill not to go
forward, and I hope what we will end up with and have is a continuing
resolution that will take us for several months.
Then I would say to the Senator from Missouri that I look forward to
working with her. I look forward to working with the Senator from
Illinois so we can put in place a construct so that we know where it is
we are going. Each year, it is not just that the appropriations bills
don't necessarily come forward, and it happens--it has happened in
years past. I understand that. They don't necessarily come forward in a
way that allows us to spend time with them--one a week or maybe two a
week or whatever. But it is also that we don't really know where it is
we are going. We don't really have a construct that is taking us to a
place over time. So it is my hope that we will either vote on something
bold relating to deficit reduction and tax reform or that we will put
in place a construct to take us where we need to go.
I don't think it does any good to cast blame, candidly. We are where
we are. I think the Senate is taking actions that are appropriate and
responsible by moving to a short-term CR. The thing I think is most
beneficial to us about that is it allows us to very quickly, in
February or March, start moving toward a downward trending line that I
think is much better for our country.
I see the Senator from Missouri standing. I think there is a lot we
as a body have to work on together. That, to me, is the most important
thing before us, and I hope when we come back we will all work very
hard to make that happen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Let me just say that had the tone of the minority
leader's remarks been the same as the Senator from Tennessee, I
probably wouldn't have felt as passionately as I did. I agree with the
Senator from Tennessee about the vote on this bill. I have publicly
said I wouldn't support it. I didn't support it for a number of
reasons. But if we want to work together, then we have to quit trying
to score cheap political points.
The notion that the minority floor leader tried to give to the
American people that this bill was somehow concocted in some back room
by Democrats--everybody knows that is not true. Everybody knows that
until about 8 hours ago, there were a bunch of Republicans voting for
this. Now, am I glad they are not voting for it? Candidly, I am. I am
glad you guys managed to get everybody to not vote for it because I am
opposed to it. But what I think was most offensive was trying to trot
this bill out here and put a label on it and try to say to the American
people that this was something that was done at the eleventh hour to be
jammed down people's throats. This was something done in a bipartisan
way. Thad Cochran had a huge role in that bill, as did every other
ranking member on all of the subcommittees on appropriations. So it is
offensive to me--it is not that we are defeating the omnibus. I like
that. But what is offensive to me is that we have gotten into this bad
habit of trying to score cheap political points. And for Senators to
come to this floor and say ``we won'' and do this kind of stuff when
you know how many Republicans worked hard on provisions in that bill--
and, in fact, Republicans worked hard--frankly, harder than our side
did on McCaskill-Sessions.
We had 17 Democrats supporting it. You had unanimous support. I was
pleased that we came together in that bipartisan way to bring the
number down. We won in bringing the number down to the level
Republicans wanted, along with 17 Democrats. That is what Sessions-
McCaskill was. I think if we can go forward in the manner the Senator
from Tennessee has spoken of, then it is important that we quit trying
to mislead somehow the American people that the bill we were going to
consider was the product of the Democratic Party, because it wasn't.
That is what causes frayed feelings.
You know, the Senator from Tennessee and I have had long discussions.
He was surprised to hear about how
[[Page 22383]]
angry we were on this side and some of the tactics that were being
used. I was surprised to hear about how angry some of the Senators on
the Republican side were at some of the tactics that were being used.
If there is going to be a moment that we come together, then we need to
work a little harder at not scoring cheap political points such as were
scored a few minutes ago by the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I
signed on to the Sessions-McCaskill bill because I think we need to get
somewhere with the deficit. We signed a resolution letter to get it
under control. I wasn't planning to speak. I was going to head home.
But it triggered me when one of our colleagues on that side said, ``who
wins tonight?'' That is not what this should be about. It is not who
wins or loses. The American people are losing every day that we have
this bickering that goes on. Honestly, I didn't see the pile of paper
with the logo on it until I got to my seat. That is not necessary for
us to get on with our business.
I was listening to the Senator from Tennessee, who was a former
mayor, and I was a former mayor. He was talking like a mayor. That is
what we need here, people who think in the long term, how we get there.
That is where we need to go. I didn't come here to hear the bickering
that just went on a little bit ago and see the prop that was brought
out. That is not why Alaska sent me here.
Who wins and loses? My State of Alaska is losing tonight, because we
cannot get our work done after a year. Almost a quarter of the Senate
sat and worked on this in multiple committees to get this bill to us.
Here we are. We can argue the timing and all that, but the fact is, I
look to both Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee.
I listen to them, and my staff works with them to hear about the bill
that is being put together. I am impressed all the time when I hear the
votes that come out of there. They are almost unanimous. That is rare
in this world we live in here. We cannot continue to bring props like
that down and say who wins and loses, and then giggle about it as they
leave the floor.
The public is fed up with that. If there is one thing they told us in
November, it was to get busy and quit the gamesmanship. So I am looking
forward to the Senator's comments. We had a very productive meeting
talking about tax reform, deficit management, and how we need to
control spending. That is the direction we have to go in. But we are
not going to get there with these games. I know both sides--and you are
right, we should not cast blame. We are all at fault here. This may be
the moment that we finally say to ourselves, no more show and tell, no
more gimmicks. Let's get serious, and the winners should be the
American people. I sat here and listened to the Senator and I feel like
the mayor was coming out of him. As a former mayor, he has had to reach
across to both sides. Senator Gregg said in his farewell speech that we
get work done between the 40 yard lines. He is right. We have to get
back there and quit being on the fringes for the media that sits up
here, and wherever else they watch us from.
I am looking forward to maybe going home and getting a good night's
sleep and coming back with a fresh attitude tomorrow. I am controlling
my emotions as best I can tonight. The words of the Senator from
Tennessee--I wish those were the words that started the debate tonight.
That is not what happened. I look forward to whatever we can do to get
through this maze and get on with the show and get what the American
people are looking for, and that is results from the Congress maybe
will go from 13 percent popularity to 14 percent approval.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for
the kind words about the deficit commission. It was a controversial
vote. I think it was the right vote to deal with our deficit and the
problems we face.
I want to put what happened tonight into some perspective in light of
the deficit commission. First, the Omnibus appropriations bill. The
total amount being spent there was $1.108 trillion. The amount of that
bill that was earmarked for specific projects was less than 1 percent
of that--$8 billion out of $1.108 trillion. That is less than 1
percent. And that was within the total amount we were limited to spend.
It wasn't as if we added it on. We were given a total amount, and less
than 1 percent of it was earmarked as to where it was going, with
complete transparency and disclosure. Again, it was $8 billion.
It troubles me when I hear Members come to the floor, as some did a
few minutes ago on the other side, saying we put an end to porkbarrel
spending, and now we are dealing with our deficit. Well, $8 billion is
a lot of money to anybody, but in the context of the debt we face as a
nation and the need to address it, it is not significant. It is not
significant in that context.
I think about the fact that yesterday most of us voted--81 of us--for
a tax bill, and included in that tax bill were tax cuts for people who
were pretty well off in America; $20 billion a year in tax cuts for the
richest estates in America to escape Federal taxation--$20 billion. We
voted yesterday, and there weren't a lot of high-fives and glorious
speeches given about the fact that we were adding $20 billion to the
deficit with that vote yesterday for the wealthiest people in America.
And $70 billion of it was for tax cuts for people making over a million
dollars a year. Nobody came here and talked about deficits then. In
fact, it was considered out of bounds.
We decided yesterday, on a bipartisan basis--and I joined in--that
getting this economy moving again was critically important. That is why
I voted for it--even though two of those provisions I particularly
loathe. That is the nature of a compromise.
I want us to remember, as we talk about going to CRs and reducing
spending, the tax bill we passed yesterday, which the House may pass
today, is a stimulus to a weak economy, in an effort to help
businesses, help individuals create more demands for goods and
services, and create more jobs and reduce unemployment. That is what it
is.
As we take spending out of the Federal side of this equation, we are
removing money from the economy. The deficit commission was sensitive
to this and said that before you start the cuts in spending for deficit
reduction, get well, get the patient well first. Stop the bleeding
before you address the fractured bone. Stop the bleeding of the
recession. That is why the deficit commission did not call for
significant spending cuts until January of 2013. We talked about it for
a long time. If we let the deficit break--and that is what we are going
to hear, I am afraid, for some time to come--too early, this economy is
going to sputter and fail.
We cannot let that happen. It is not in the interest of either
political party. We have to find the right combination that moves us
toward long-term deficit reality but the short-term economic reality we
face. I think the deficit commission got the right balance. I hope we
can build on that. I say to Senator Corker and Senator Alexander, if at
the end of the day those of us in the Senate who voted for the deficit
commission--in this case, it would be Senator Conrad, Senator Crapo,
Senator Coburn, and myself--if we could reach the point where we come
together in a bipartisan budget resolution based on that deficit
commission, if we have a Senate budget resolution--and take the word
``bipartisan'' out of it--that reflects the feelings of that deficit
commission, then that commission will have been a success and put us on
the right track, and we can stand strong together.
I hope you agree that would be the best thing for this country. I
hope we can reach that point. I thank the Senator for his kind words.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is
recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from
Tennessee, Senator Corker, for his usual
[[Page 22384]]
common sense, as well as the assistant Democratic leader, Senator
Durbin, for his courage on the debt commission.
I believe that the decision made tonight about the omnibus bill is
best for the country, but there could have been a better result. It
would have been along the lines of what the Senator from Illinois
described. If we had been able earlier in the year to agree on a budget
in the Senate, which is how much are we going to spend, and if we could
have gone committee by committee--and there are 13 subcommittees, and
we both serve on the Appropriations Committee--and we could have
brought those to the floor by August, voted on them, and got on with it
so the government could run, that would by far be a better result.
There is no need to say why that didn't happen, whether it was a
Democratic or Republican fault. It didn't happen. So that falls on all
of us to look ahead and see if it can't happen in the future. I believe
it can. In fact, I believe that it must. We have a time coming up next
year when we will be asked to raise the debt ceiling. We will have
before us a recommendation from the debt commission that five of the
six Senators who served on it voted for. They stuck their necks way out
to do that. The Senator from Illinois, the Senator from North Dakota,
and three Republican Senators, as well. So I think it is incumbent upon
all of us--we can find points of division fairly easily. That is not
hard to do. Finding points of consensus is harder. Cutting taxes is
easier. Reducing the debt is going to be harder.
So in the next 3 or 4 months, when we come back, I hope we will build
on the conversation that I heard earlier this week with Senators Warner
and Chambliss, and a group of nearly 20 Senators on both sides, who
committed themselves to work on the debt commission. I hope we can, in
the Appropriations Committee, start out the year with some way of
agreeing on a ceiling, and then work together to work within that
ceiling so we can run the government.
A continuing resolution for a year is a lousy way to run a
government. It wastes money, because you end up funding things that
should be cut and not funding things that need increases. I think this
was the right result for the American people of the choices we had
tonight. But there could be a better choice. It is our responsibility
to see next year if we can offer ourselves, and therefore the American
people, that choice.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. I also thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank the
senior Senator from Tennessee, who is always doing and saying the right
thing from the floor and leads us in such a great way.
I say to the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, I hope there
is some way that we don't let what happened over the course of the last
3 months on the deficit reduction commission go to waste. I fear that
what is happening right now is that people are beginning to talk about
some kind of situation where we then revisit all of these things for
the next year or so. I know I am not privy to all the details that all
of you worked on for so long, but I do think when this debt ceiling
vote comes up, which will be in April, May, or maybe the first week in
June, it seems to me that is the next moment in the Senate.
I talked with some of the members of the deficit reduction commission
on my side and certainly look forward to talking to the Senator from
Illinois about the same thing. I hope there is a way that we actually
vote on something that is real and not kick this down the road with
some meaningless resolution that makes the American people think we
have done something, when in actuality we have done nothing and just
kicked it down the road.
I thank the Chair and I hope that is the case.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2010
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on
Friday, December 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal
of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive
session to resume consideration of the New START treaty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, the START treaty will be open to
amendments tomorrow. Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to
offer and debate their amendments. Rollcall votes are possible to occur
throughout the day.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to
come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:36 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, December 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate, Thursday, December 16,
2010:
THE JUDICIARY
CATHERINE C. EAGLES, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
JOHN A. GIBNEY, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.
JAMES KELLEHER BREDAR, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND.
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
[[Page 22385]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, December 16, 2010
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Pastor).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
December 16, 2010.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Ed Pastor to act as Speaker
pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
O Lord, have pity on us, for You do we wait.
Be our strength every morning, our salvation in time of trouble.
As You approach, people flee. When You rise up in Your majesty, whole
nations seem to scatter.
They realize half-truths have led to confusion, and poor decisions
reveal lasting consequences.
In You alone do we find the wisdom which leads to stability both now
and forever.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Schock) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. SCHOCK 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.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 10 requests
for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
WORLDWIDE MARRIAGE ENCOUNTER
(Mrs. DAHLKEMPER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Worldwide
Marriage Encounter.
For over 40 years, Worldwide Marriage Encounter has strengthened
countless marriages through a weekend workshop to improve a couple's
communication. Worldwide Marriage Encounter is totally self-supporting,
and no couple is turned away because they do not have the ability to
pay. In 2009, over 10,000 couples attended the Worldwide Marriage
Encounter weekends in the United States alone.
Marriage is a vital institution in the life of our society. Couples
in good marriages live longer and happier lives. Worldwide Marriage
Encounter is undertaking a project to recognize the longest married
couple from every State, with special recognition to the longest
married couple in the United States. As nearly 50 percent of marriages
end in divorce, it is truly an inspiration to see how many couples have
remained together for so long.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating
Worldwide Marriage Encounter and all the volunteers and clergy for
their efforts to strengthen marriages throughout our country.
____________________
OMNIBUS SPENDING
(Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, despite $14 trillion in debt, Congress
continues to waste taxpayers' money.
The Senate is now debating the Senate bill, loaded with more than
6,000 earmarks, including research for maple syrup in Vermont. This
barrel of pork totals $8.3 billion.
America's message last month was very clear--stop the reckless
spending.
This continued borrowing and spending is putting our country on the
road to bankruptcy. Forty-nine out of 50 States have to balance their
budgets. Yet, in the last 50 years, we have only managed to balance the
Federal budget five times. This has to change.
We need to pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and we
need to pass it today.
____________________
REBUILDING OUR OWN NATION
(Mr. HIMES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I make a point every day to look in The Times
at that black box, usually on page 7 or 8, that lists the names of
those young men and women who have given their lives in Afghanistan.
Yesterday, it struck me, as we go into Christmas, that there were
seven names on that list--six of them under the age of 25. Two of them,
Ken Necochea and Derek Simonetta, were only 21 years old. I wonder if
they'd ever bought a drink in a bar or in the country in which they
were serving. On the front page of The New York Times: U.S.
Intelligence Offers Dim View of Afghan War.
I say all this because this time last year I was in Afghanistan,
watching the good work that these young men and women are doing--
building roads, building markets, building a nation--and reflecting on
the fact that this is a nation that, for 1,000 years, has spit out
foreigners as sport.
As we go into Christmas and I think about the kids in my city of
Bridgeport, whose schools have leaking roofs, whose highways are
crumbling, whose rails are coming apart, I wonder, Mr. Speaker: Is it
not time that we start rebuilding this Nation, not one that seems to
not want us there?
____________________
ANOTHER HOUSING BUBBLE
(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, American Enterprise
Institute fellows Peter Wallison and Edward Pinto have warned, ``It is
hard to believe, but it looks like the government will soon use the
taxpayers' checkbook again to create a vast market for mortgages with
low or no down payments and for overstretched borrowers with blemished
credit. As in the period leading to the 2008 financial crisis, these
loans will again contribute to a housing bubble.''
They go on to state, ``The goal of Congress and regulators should be
to foster the residential mortgage market's return to the standards
that used to prevail in 1990, before the affordable housing
requirements were imposed on Fannie and Freddie.''
We should fix the current problem. For starters, the Dodd-Frank Act
needs
[[Page 22386]]
to be amended so that quality standards are applied to FHA and other
government agencies. This should not impair credit availability for the
important home-building and real estate industries.
As a former real estate attorney, I know the government should not
overwhelm homeowners with mortgages they cannot afford. This destroys
neighborhoods and families.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th.
____________________
TAX CUTS THROUGH BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE
(Mr. ALTMIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, as we work to close out this session of
Congress, Members of this House today will vote on a major piece of
legislation to extend tax cuts for every American. While this bill is
expected to help provide a boost to our economy, perhaps equally
important is the way that we arrived at this stage in the legislative
process--through bipartisan compromise.
This bill is a result of negotiation between Republicans and
Democrats, between the President and the Congress, between the House
and the Senate. That's right. This bill which we are going to pass
today and send to the President is a result of the type of give-and-
take negotiation that is supposed to be part of the legislative process
but that, unfortunately, has long been lacking in Congress.
Hopefully, passage of this bill today will be but a sign of things to
come. I hope the new Republican leadership in Congress taking office on
January 5 will incorporate all points of view--of Republicans and
Democrats alike--and will continue working in a bipartisan way to put
the American people ahead of partisan politics.
____________________
{time} 1010
INTERNATIONAL PREVENTING CHILD MARRIAGE ACT
(Mr. SCHOCK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the International
Preventing Child Marriage Act.
I had the opportunity to travel earlier this year in September with
the well-respected nonprofit CARE to the country of Ethiopia. During
that time, we visited the Hamlin Fistula Hospital and saw firsthand the
atrocities and the realities of the situation with so many of these
young girls who are forced into early marriages beyond their wishes,
marriages that rob their potential to grow and mature both physically
as well as mentally, for them to be able to establish their own life
and their own goals and hopes and dreams for them to pursue.
As a leader here in our country and around the world in preventing
world poverty and spreading goodwill, there can be nothing better that
we can do as a country than to join with our international partners in
trying to prevent child marriage, both in Ethiopia as well as other
countries around the world, and give these young women the hope and
opportunity that people in our country have for themselves.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
____________________
INCREASING THE NATION'S DEBT
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Yesterday, with one vote, the United States Senate
increased the debt of the United States by $858 billion. Is this the
best we can do to help those out of work, the best we can do to begin a
sustained economic recovery, to enshrine the trickle-down, supply-side
tax cuts of the Bush years that have failed so miserably over the last
decade and some of the worst aspects of the so-called stimulus debt
finance consumption of goods made in China with money borrowed from
China?
Worse yet, $112 billion of this is going to come from Social
Security, the first time Congress has ever broken down the firewall
between the general fund of the United States and the sacrosanct Social
Security trust fund.
No, we could do much, much better.
____________________
REJECT THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, when the Obama administration was faced with
a massive omnibus in January of 2009, the President stated that he had
to sign it because this is simply last year's business that he had no
part of. Well, he's going to face another omnibus this year. This was
all done under his watch by the Congress. It's not his fault, but he
has a veto pen and he should use it.
This omnibus that's going to come to the President is going to
contain more than 6,000 earmarks for things like a couple of hundred
thousand that was mentioned for maple syrup research or $500,000 for
biodiesel research from sewage-based biodiesel and thousands and
thousands of other earmarks like this.
The President recently said: I agree with those Republican and
Democrat Members of Congress who have recently said that, in these
challenging days, we simply can't afford what are called earmarks.
Well, Mr. President, please make good on that statement. Veto this
omnibus bill coming. Better yet, convince your colleagues in the House
and the Senate to reject it before it comes to the floor.
____________________
WE CAN DO BETTER
(Mr. DEUTCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to fight for new jobs,
protect the retirement security of America's seniors, and give middle
class families a fair shake in this economy. Yet our efforts, the basic
bricks in the foundation of a working economy, have been cast aside by
my Republican colleagues.
The Republicans have sweetened the tax deal today by demanding that
American taxpayers fork over $26 billion for an estate tax break that
will go to about 6,600 families. I offer some perspective.
There are more than 6,600 people in Century Village, King's Point,
and each of the major retirement communities I represent. There are
more undergraduates at Florida Atlantic University in my district. And
my teenage daughters and their high school friends are together on
track to have more than 6,600 Facebook friends.
And $26 billion? 16.2 million Americans who depend on food stamps to
eat could eat for a year. 3.5 million American college students at our
public universities could see their tuition paid in full. And most
striking, more than $175,000 could go to each of the 140,000 families
whose sons and daughters are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We can do better, Mr. Speaker.
____________________
EXTEND ALL THE CURRENT TAX RATES FOR EVERY AMERICAN
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today is December 16, 2010. There are only 15
days left until the American people are burdened with one of the
largest tax increases in almost three decades. We must act now to
extend all of the current tax rates for every American. We must allow
Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.
Stopping the tax increases leaves more dollars and cents in the
pockets of those who need them. It will also encourage small businesses
and the private sector to invest and hire. We need to spur economic
growth to pull us out of one of the worst economies in our recent
history.
The President and his party currently control both Chambers of
Congress and will maintain a majority in the Senate and will hold the
White House come January. Let's not just
[[Page 22387]]
tell our fellow Americans that we listened and have heard their
concerns about the economy and their money. Let's show them by
extending all the current tax rates for every American and do that
without other items that add to the deficit.
____________________
WE MUST DO MORE FOR OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY AND JOB MARKET
(Mr. TONKO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today proud to represent the third
fastest growing high-tech job market in the country, that being Albany
and the capital district of New York.
According to a new Tech America Foundation report, Albany grew its
high-tech positions last year by 1.6 percent. While this is good news,
there is also bad news. Nationwide, the number of high-tech jobs shrank
by 3.2 percent. Albany's success is at least partially due to the
resources available at the University at Albany's College of Nanoscale
Science and Engineering. These jobs were not created by a government
handout to millionaires or massive estates. They were created by
investing in the local infrastructure and economy to create jobs.
While Albany added 900 high-tech jobs over the past couple of years,
with an average wage nearing $80,000, we must do more to lay the
groundwork for our national economy and job market to grow the high-
tech outcome. Those investments yield great returns and produce jobs.
____________________
OMNIBUS
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it's over 1,900 pages long. It contains more
than 6,000 earmarks. It costs over $1.1 trillion. It's the new Senate
omnibus bill and it's a legislative travesty.
A lame duck Congress with Members who won't be here in just 3 weeks
should not saddle the American people with hundreds of billions of
dollars in new debt. This bill increases spending over last year, even
though we ran up a $1.3 trillion debt this year, and will run up a
similarly high deficit next year. We don't need to be growing the
Federal Government; we need to be shrinking it.
This bill totally ignores what happened in this country on November
2, but seeing as some of the earmarks come from Senators who won't be
back next year, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. The American people
are tired of paying their taxes so that $165,000 can pay for maple
syrup research and $1 million can go to AFL-CIO training programs.
Congress' approval rating this session is at a record low, 13
percent. With bills like this, we shouldn't be surprised.
____________________
TAX CUT PROPOSAL DEFINES CONTRASTING PRIORITIES
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm here this
morning to simply say that Democrats continue to fight to maintain tax
cuts on income up to $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals.
My Republican colleagues continue to demand tax cuts for all incomes,
including millionaires and billionaires.
I ask my Democrats to please continue to extend the unemployment
benefits to help out Americans to make it through this recession, and I
plead with my Republican colleagues to not hold the middle class and
unemployment hostage any longer.
I also recommend that we help the 155 million middle class Americans
at a cost of $214 billion, and I plead with my colleagues to join us in
assisting to help because only 4.8 million of the country's wealthiest,
at a cost of $133 billion, is what we are trying to make a decision on.
Please join me and look out for the working people of this country,
and let the billionaires continue to pay the bills.
____________________
{time} 1020
HONORING THE SERVICE AND SACRIFICE OF CORPORAL CHAD STAFFORD WADE
(Mr. BOOZMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of America's
bravest, Corporal Chad Stafford Wade of Bentonville, Arkansas, who
valiantly sacrificed his life in support of combat missions in
Afghanistan. Corporal Wade was a devoted family man and friend who was
known to make those around him laugh. He shared his zest for life
through the small things he did that put a smile on the faces of those
who loved him, demonstrating his love of music, singing his favorite
country songs, and enjoying the outdoors.
Corporal Wade taught others the importance of service, joining the
Marine Corps in October of 2007. He was a member of the 2nd Battalion,
1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force
based in Camp Pendleton, California, and served in combat missions in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
My prayers and the prayers of Arkansans are with Corporal Wade's
family, including his wife, Katie, his mom, Tami, and his dad Terence.
I humbly offer my thanks to Corporal Wade, a true American hero, for
his selfless service to the security and well-being of all Americans,
and I ask my colleagues to keep his family in our thoughts and prayers
during this very difficult time.
____________________
WHERE IS ROBIN HOOD WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
(Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, where is Robin Hood when you
need him? I rise today to express my profound sadness about the tax
bill that was passed by the Senate and set to pass in this House that
benefits the wealthiest of Americans at the expense of putting billions
of dollars of debt onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
Where is Robin Hood?
It's not just about the estate tax for 6,600 families or the tax cuts
for the 2 percenters. This is so irresponsible. It contradicts
everything, as Democrats, that we have been fighting for for
generations. And for those who charge that it's purity or sanctimony,
make no mistake, this is about our value as Democrats. It's about the
prospect of creating hope and opportunity for our children and
grandchildren, and we're not doing it here. Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to say that it's time for us to do what's in the interest of working
families in this country and not to continue to sacrifice for the very
few.
____________________
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. We all know
that. In my State of California, we have a statewide unemployment rate
of 12.5 percent; and in part of the area I am privileged to represent,
we have a 15.5 percent unemployment rate. There are steps that we
should have taken that we still can take that will help deal with the
joblessness problem about which we are all concerned.
I believe that the President has been right on target in talking
about the need to open up new markets around the world as we seek to
create good manufacturing jobs right here in the United States of
America. We can do that if we move as expeditiously as possible to pass
not only the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which the President has talked
about and he believes is very important, which will be the single-
largest bilateral free trade
[[Page 22388]]
agreement in the history of the world, but also at the same time within
this hemisphere, we need to pass the Panama and Colombia Free Trade
Agreements. Jobs can be created for Caterpillar workers, for John Deere
workers, for Whirlpool workers right here in this country if we can
open up the markets within this hemisphere. Union and nonunion jobs
will be created. We need to move now.
____________________
THE DEFICIT
(Mr. LYNCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LYNCH. Later on today, Mr. Speaker, we will address this bill
which would award a tax cut for the richest 2 percent of Americans, and
it's important that we understand the context in which this bill is
being addressed. In this current year, the government has taken in $2.4
trillion in revenue, but we have spent $3.7 trillion. And so we have a
deficit of $1.3 trillion. If this bill passes, it will add almost $1
trillion to our national debt.
At current rates, by the year 2040, the interest on the debt will be
double the amount that we spend on defense, education, transportation,
agriculture, housing, the space program, science, and research and
development. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and not
address our national debt. We're running out of road, we're running out
of time, and the American people deserve a better deal.
____________________
COSTLY AND UNNECESSARY SECOND F-35 ENGINE
(Mr. QUIGLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because, despite opposition
from the Secretary of Defense, the President, the Navy, the Air Force,
and the Marine Corps, the Senate spending package still includes $450
million for a second engine for the F-35. Americans across the country
are tightening their belts, 15 million are unemployed, and many of
those with jobs have not seen raises in years. But the Federal
Government seems to think that it is exempt from this shared cost-
cutting.
Despite the recession and ballooning debt, we continue to fund
wasteful projects like the second engine, which our own military has
asserted they neither need or want. Sadly, the second engine is just
the tip of the defense spending iceberg, the lowest of the low-hanging
fruit. According to a recent report by the Sustainable Defense Task
Force, hundreds of billions could be cut from our defense budget
without harming national security. There can be no sacred cows. Cost-
cutting has to include defense, and it should start with what Secretary
Gates has called the ``costly and unnecessary'' second F-35 engine.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res 1766
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to debate in the House the topics addressed
by the motions specified in sections 2 and 3 of this
resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means or their designees.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
final adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 3. If the motion described in section 2 of this
resolution fails of adoption, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on a motion that the House concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment, on which the Chair shall immediately put the
question.
Sec. 4. Until completion of proceedings enabled by the
first three sections of this resolution--
(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
motion, resolution, question, or notice;
(b) the Chair may postpone such proceedings to such time as
may be designated by the Speaker; and
(c) each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this
resolution shall be considered as read.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1766
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
Following debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration as
the statutory means of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
{time} 1030
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this tax
package that the House will consider shortly. While there may not be
unfunded mandates per se in the bill, this will impose a burden on
States and local governments and everyone else here. And particularly
it will add a huge burden to our kids and our grandkids, because we are
borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars that will go directly to the
deficit and directly to our $14 trillion national debt.
On November 2, I think we got a pretty good message from the
taxpayers. They wanted us to stop running deficits and to start paying
down the debt. Yet before we even get to the new year, just weeks away
from the election, here we are, adding hundreds of billions of dollars
to the deficit and to the debt. This compromise shows that Washington
just doesn't get it yet. We simply didn't get the message we were
supposed to on November 2.
I do support the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that were
enacted, and we also have to find a remedy for the death tax. But we've
got to do it in a different way than this. Congress can take swift
action to ensure that taxes don't go up, but we shouldn't be adding the
other items that we're doing here. It's taken on the seasonal theme
again, of course. It's become a Christmas tree. I'll explain a few of
the items in it. But it just notes, more than anything, that we haven't
gotten the message, that we're just going about things the same way we
always have.
Let me just take one provision here, ethanol. We've been subsidizing
ethanol now for nearly 30 years. It's about a $6 billion a year
subsidy. They have the trifecta, the ethanol industry. We mandate its
use. We impose tariffs to imports to make sure we can compete, and then
we subsidize as well. And we're going to continue to do all those
things here for an industry that should be mature at this time, but
it's continuing to get subsidies. How in the world that belongs as part
of this tax package I'll leave for the voters to decide. But it just
shows that we haven't changed. When are we going to wake up to the fact
that we can't continue to do business like this anymore?
[[Page 22389]]
With regard to ethanol, one of the former backers was former Vice
President Al Gore. He said the other day: One of the reasons I made
this mistake--this mistake being supporting the subsidizing of
ethanol--is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home
State of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the
State of Iowa because I was about to run for President.
Now, that's a pretty candid admission. And the reason we have ethanol
subsidies is that all Presidential campaigns begin in Iowa. But that's
no reason to saddle the rest of the country with this kind of burden.
And also the negative impacts on the environment are huge and growing
from ethanol, yet we continue to do it just to buy a couple of votes to
get this tax bill over the top.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I must say that I understand the point of the gentleman. I think
spending this kind of money, over $700 billion over 10 years for 6,600
families in the United States, is a foolish expenditure. I do agree
that what we want to do is get the deficit down, and believe me, that
does not do it.
Technically, though, this point of order is about whether or not to
consider the rule and, ultimately, the underlying measure. And, in
reality, it's about trying to block the measure. I believe that that's
an abdication of our responsibility. We have to have the opportunity to
debate, and without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the
legislation, we are failing our responsibility. I think that is wrong.
I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider the
legislation on its merits and vote accordingly and not stop it on a
procedural motion.
I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the comments of the gentlelady. She brings up
that this is a technicality, that we're just speaking here on a point
of order when we should be speaking on the bill and that we should
debate this bill on the merits. I would like to. That's why I actually
submitted an amendment to the gentlelady's committee, to the Rules
Committee, to debate the ethanol provision; yet it wasn't included. We
weren't allowed to debate that. And so if we're not allowed to debate
that then under the rule, then we have to debate it some other time.
I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules Committee as to
why this wasn't included and why only amendments that may make Members
feel good about voting on but have no possibility of delaying this
package were even considered.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would say to my friend that he is absolutely right in pointing to
the fact that we had a more than 2-hour hearing in the Rules Committee.
The die was already cast. The decision had already been made that the
only thing that would be made in order was an opportunity to increase
the death tax, that burden on the intergenerational transfer that we
believe is important to keep our economy growing. And the amendment
that my friend offered, and my California colleague, Mr. Herger,
offered a similar amendment to deal with this notion of ethanol
subsidies, which are just plain wrong, and I'm troubled at the fact
that this rule does not allow us a chance to address those issues.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
Just continuing on the ethanol theme, Robert Bryce of the Manhattan
Institute said recently: ``Between 1999 and 2009, while U.S. ethanol
production increased sevenfold to more than 700,000 barrels a day, U.S.
oil imports actually increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day.
Furthermore, and perhaps more surprising, during the same period, U.S.
oil exports--yes, exports--more than doubled to more than 2 million
barrels per day.
``Data from the Energy Information Administration show that oil
imports closely track U.S. oil consumption. Over the past decade, as
domestic oil demand grew, imports increased. When consumption fell,
imports dropped. Ramped-up ethanol production levels simply had no
apparent effect on oil imports or consumption.''
We have every level of the administration, anybody who analyzes this
says that this is a boondoggle; and yet it reappears here, a $6 billion
item, not insubstantial, not small. But it appears here in this tax
package simply to get it over the line. That simply can't happen
anymore if we're going to get control on this debt and deficit.
Let me talk about one other provision of the tax bill. All of us talk
about the burden that the payroll tax has, and it is big. And it's
tough for taxpayers to pay the payroll tax. I would like to lower it. I
think everybody would like to lower it. But the payroll tax is
dedicated specifically for Social Security. It goes into the Social
Security trust fund.
Under this legislation, we'll have a 2 percent reduction in the
payroll tax on the employee side. That will net somebody like me or any
Member of Congress here about $2,000 a year. What does it do for the
deficit? It will balloon the deficit by $120 billion a year. One year
from now, because it's only a 1-year reduction, we'll be faced with
this same problem.
What do we do as Republicans? We always say we're not going to raise
taxes on anybody, no matter how temporary the tax. We'll be forced
politically, with the situation, where do we increase this tax? Do we
let it go? If we let it continue, that's another $120 billion hole in
the deficit and in the Social Security trust fund. Why are we doing
that?
If we do have payroll tax deductions, we may well want to, but at
least let's have commensurate benefit cuts on the other side. Let's
address benefits on the other side. If we're not going to lower them,
then we shouldn't lower this.
This is simply irresponsible for us to take a bill like this and
assume that it's not going to have an impact on the deficit and not
going to have an impact on the debt.
Where are we now? Just a few weeks ago, every one of us, I tell you,
every one of us running for office said to the voters, we're going to
get control of the debt and the deficit. All of us said that. And yet
our first actions here, before we even go into the next Congress, is to
put a bill on the floor that's going to balloon the debt and deficit.
How can we do that? We can't. We shouldn't. That's why I am raising
this point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1040
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Again, this is a package that we simply cannot afford. We
cannot go on as if the deficit and the debt don't matter. Not only that
they don't matter, but we expand them considerably. We can continue the
tax cuts for every American. We can do that without these extra things
in the bill. Let's wait until January. Let's wait until we have a new
Congress, and let's do a different deal than this. This is not a deal
that is good for the taxpayer; it is not a deal that is good for this
institution.
We have said that we will change and that we got the message. This is
evidence that we haven't.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments
this morning. I urge him to vote ``no'' on this bill if he plans to do
that, and I think he will find a great deal of company. But I want to
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we may
debate and vote on this piece of legislation today.
It is not perfect by any means. I rarely see a piece of perfect
legislation. But
[[Page 22390]]
remember that what we are doing here is concurring in a Senate bill,
which limited the fact of how many changes that we would be able to
make.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution
1766.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1766 provides for consideration
of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
to H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
and Job Creation Act.
The rule provides 3 hours of debate and makes in order a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House
concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the Rules
Committee report. If that motion fails, the rule causes to be pending a
motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment to H.R. 4853.
Finally, until completion of all proceedings, the Chair may decline
to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question, or notice;
the Chair may postpone proceedings to a time designated by the Speaker;
and each amendment and motion shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan agreement on a framework for extending
middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment relief is certainly
not perfect. In fact, I don't like it much at all.
In the lead-up to the debate here this morning, a lot of my
constituents have encouraged me to oppose it. They know it is an
unwarranted handout for millionaires and billionaires at a time when we
are still fighting two wars with countless pressing needs here at home
and a deficit that would push us further into the red by this giveaway.
A typical sentiment was reflected in a call from Ken, a Niagara Falls
resident, who phoned my office to insist it was wrong-headed for
Democrats, who control the House, the Senate, and White House, to agree
to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. His words were: ``Barack
Obama is still the President of the United States, not Mitch McConnell,
and McConnell should not get to dictate tax policy.'' To that, I say, I
hear you. But, nonetheless, today here we are.
There are some good things in this bill. Certainly extending
unemployment relief for struggling American workers who may have been
laid off and simply need assistance to help them buy groceries and
necessities until they find a new job is important.
During the last 2 years, this Congress has voted to cut taxes for
working parents and small businesses at least eight times, and lower
tuition costs for college students. We have provided the best
opportunities for growth and prosperity.
But losing $25 billion in revenue to provide a tax shelter to 6,600
families who will qualify for this new estate tax handout is just
wrong, it is disgraceful, and it is damaging to the entire economic
future of this country.
In the aftermath of this negotiation, the President was accused of
quitting in the first round, giving away the store, punting on first
down, and other things that I don't want to go into here. But while
this agreement is flawed, there are parts of it, as I said, that will
benefit the American people.
Failure to send the bill to the President's desk for his signature
would result in tax hikes on millions of middle class families across
our country and loss of unemployment insurance for those who are
hardest hit by this recession.
More importantly, I think it might risk slowing the economic
recovery. However, I think it is very important for me to make this
point: we have lived with these tax cuts for 10 years. It is certainly
no secret to any American or anybody else in the world that our
unemployment condition is perfectly awful. And to try to pretend to the
American people that once we pass this great tax cut for the rich that
jobs are suddenly going to rain on us makes us feel like Alice in
Wonderland, able to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast. I am
just not one of them. It will not make that kind of difference. It
simply, once again, makes the rich richer. But that was the price we
had to pay for helping the middle class and the unemployed.
I note that many of these tax cuts, as we know, were created 10 years
ago. And what have they brought? Nothing but a deep-lasting recession.
But what I also want to comment on here is the impossibility of this
Congress to let these tax cuts expire, which would in itself decrease
the deficit by 50 percent in 2 years, says to me that these will never
expire. And I want to put that in connection with what we have done to
the payroll tax.
I consider this one of the greatest threats to Social Security and
its future. If anybody here believes, if anyone can stand up and
believe that we are going to be able to reinstate that payroll tax on
employers and employees, they only need to look at what is happening
here today, that after 10 years of experience, which brought us no
jobs, we are expanding tax cuts which will, again, bring us no jobs.
If this agreement doesn't become law, I know that the tax rates on
the middle class will go up. They are going to end up paying more
money, and I hate that, because God knows all the benefits in the last
10 years have gone to the wealthy.
I dread seeing my America, the one I grew up in and I love, where I
don't believe that the American Dream is available for children
anymore. I am not going to cry about it, but I know that now that the
rich are richer and the poor are poorer, the poor children don't think
about that much anymore. They think about trying to get an education,
if they can, or trying to live another year.
So we have to take this bill up today. No question about it. And I
feel very sad about it. But I will tell you that it has been our
experience that these are the prices that we have to pay when we
negotiate with our partners on the other side. They believe in trickle-
down with all their heart: make everybody richer at the top, all those
great folks, even those with great inherited wealth, as my colleague
Mr. McGovern said, who may never have worked a day in their life, and
suddenly jobs are going to be produced. Please, America, please don't
believe that. That is not what we are doing here today. We are not
doing anything to benefit this economy here today.
That logic of driving up long-term deficits and putting the
government in the red more than it is, to hand out money for a tiny
fraction of taxpayers, is that really a sensible thing for America to
be doing today? I think not. But we know that the other side in the
coming years will pursue even more tax breaks for the wealthiest and
the wealthiest estates. All of those tangible outcomes are directed
toward millionaires and billionaires. As long as I am serving in
Congress, I will resist this with every fiber of my being because I
don't think it does anything for our economy while adding to the
deficit.
In the end, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support this rule
so that we may have this 3-hour debate, which will give people plenty
of time on both sides to express their opinion. It is a fair process.
All the Members will be able to express their views.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 22391]]
{time} 1050
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation
to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished
chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin in the spirit of the season and say that I
would like to associate myself with some of the remarks that were
offered by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, and
express appreciation to Ms. Slaughter for her very, very interesting
and thoughtful approach to this issue.
I associate myself with the remarks she made when she said she
doesn't like this measure. I associate myself with her in that in
saying I don't like this measure that is before us, Mr. Speaker. But I
like even less the idea of our imposing a tax increase on every single
American who pays their income taxes. I believe that that would have a
deleterious effect to the goal that we as Democrats and Republicans
alike share.
What is the message that we have gotten over and over and over again
and the message that was sent this past November 2? It was create jobs,
focus on economic growth, make sure that we can do everything that we
possibly can to look at those Americans who are hurting today, and make
sure that they have an opportunity to get onto the first rung of the
economic ladder. That is the driving message. Obviously, a very
important part of that is going to be to reduce the size and scope and
reach of the Federal Government, which has undermined the ability for
job creation and economic growth to take place.
Now, when I say I don't like this measure that is before us, I don't
like the fact, and many of my Republican colleagues have raised this--
Mr. Flake just raised concerns about the ethanol subsidies. I don't
like the fact that we have unemployment benefits that are extended
without being paid for. I don't like a number of the provisions here.
But we are in the midst of a very fragile economic recovery at this
juncture, and I will tell you, mark my words, Mr. Speaker, beginning in
January we are going to focus on cutting spending. I have just come
from a meeting with a number of my colleagues, and we are determined to
focus on that. That is why it is imperative that today we recognize
that the issue that is before us is going to actually be helpful in our
quest to deal with job creation and economic growth.
I congratulate President Obama for working in a bipartisan way to
address this issue. In fact, I said in the last campaign that one of my
priorities was to work to make President Obama a better President. I
believe the fact that he has moved towards recognizing that a pro-
growth economic policy has direct ties to the level of taxation imposed
on working Americans and job creators is a positive sign, and I believe
that moves him in the direction of being a better President.
I also have been encouraged by the fact that he wants to create jobs
by opening up new markets around the world. I gave a 1-minute speech
this morning talking about the importance of the key U.S.-Korea free
trade agreement the President supports and I hope will send to us very
soon. It will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the
history of the world, when you look at the size of our economies. That
is something that the President is supporting and I believe we will be
able to work on in a bipartisan way.
So, Mr. Speaker, the notion of seeing President Obama shifting to the
John F. Kennedy vision and the Ronald Reagan vision on economic growth
is a very encouraging indicator to me and many of our colleagues, and
should be for the American people as well.
Now, again I will say that Ms. Slaughter is absolutely right; we
don't like this measure. But the idea of increasing taxes is something
that is anathema to the vision of economic growth and job creation. And
it is not just conservative economists who say that, it is not just the
supply-siders, of which I consider myself to be one.
Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, Keynesian economists, those who
subscribe to the view of John Maynard Keynes, who lived until 1950,
recognizing and focusing on the issue of spending, those who subscribe
to the Keynesian view recognize that increasing taxes on anyone when
you are dealing with slow economic growth is a prescription for
exacerbating, exacerbating, the problems that you are trying to
address.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the midst of bipartisan discussions over
the past several days with a number of my colleagues on the recognition
that we have to say that Democrats should recognize that spending cuts
need to take place and Republicans need to recognize that tax increases
need to take place. It is an interesting discussion, and many argue
that that is sort of the give-and-take we have.
But I think it is important as we look at this issue to harken back
on history. Next month I will begin my fourth decade here, and I will
say that there was a study done in my first decade, during the 1980s,
by two professors from Ohio University, Professors Vedder and Gallaway.
Their study looked at the impact of tax increases in the quest to try
to reduce spending and the size and scope of government and deal with
the problem that Democrats and Republicans alike regularly decry, that
being the expansion of government.
Well, their study was known as the $1.58 Study. What it showed, Mr.
Speaker, was that every time there was $1 in taxes increased, the
Federal Government increased spending by $1.58. Now, I remember one of
the first measures that I voted against was known as the Tax Equity and
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, and in that measure they said there
would be $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased.
Mr. Speaker, as we are here today just days before Christmas, going
back to 1982 we got the $98.5 billion tax increase included in that,
but we are still waiting for those $3 in spending cuts. The Vedder-
Gallaway study made it very, very clear, looking on many occasions, the
1990 increase and other studies done since then have shown for every $1
in taxes increased, spending has increased from $1.05 to $1.81, and
this is outlined in a piece that was done by Professor Vedder and
Stephen Moore in The Wall Street Journal this week.
So our notion of saying that increasing taxes is going to deal with
the deficit problem is again a specious argument.
Now, many argue that the tax that exists on job creators, those at
the upper end, will create a great drain on the Federal Treasury. But
if we are going to focus again on job creation and economic growth, Mr.
Speaker, I am convinced, based on the vision put forth by Professor
Arthur Laffer and many others, that the economic growth that will
follow keeping those rates low on job creators will actually increase
the flow of revenues to the Federal treasury, and keeping those top
rates low, capital gains and dividend rates low, will spur the growth
that will create jobs, and many people who today are not working and
are in fact receiving unemployment benefits will have opportunity, and
they will be joining the productive side of the economy and generating
that flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury that we obviously
desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have been asking us to do this for a
long period of time. My colleagues have had an opportunity to do it for
a long period of time. Unfortunately, here we are just 2 weeks, just 2
weeks before the end of the year, and 2 weeks before the largest income
tax rate increase that we have seen in many a year is scheduled to take
place.
So while there is much to criticize about this measure, and I could
easily vote against it, I believe that the right vote for us to cast is
a vote which will ensure that we continue down the road towards job
creation and economic growth and allowing the American people to keep
more of what they've earned.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 22392]]
{time} 1100
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr.
McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in reluctant
opposition to the underlying legislation.
Let me begin by saying that I know there are a lot of goods things in
this bill. The bill extends tax relief for middle class families. It
extends unemployment insurance for Americans who, through no fault of
their own, find themselves out of work in this difficult economy. The
bill also extends several important tax relief measures that were
included in last year's recovery package, including the parity for
transit benefits, which is a measure that I have worked on here in the
House.
I understand and appreciate the situation in which President Obama
found himself. He was faced with the United States Senate that demands
a supermajority of 60 votes to order pizza, let alone enact significant
legislation. Over the past 2 years, our Republican colleagues in the
Senate have blown by the previous records for filibusters. They have
made it clear that their overriding political strategy is to say ``no''
to whatever President Obama proposes, no matter how worthy or popular.
And that's unfortunate, but that's the reality we face. And it is
unbelievably cynical.
But I believe that the provisions in this bill that give away
billions and billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest
Americans are unnecessary, unproductive, and irresponsible.
Unnecessary, because over the past few years, while millions of middle
class families struggled to pay their mortgages and put food on the
table, the wealthiest few in America have done very well. The fat cats
on Wall Street are riding high once again with multimillion-dollar
bonuses and golden parachutes. Unproductive, because study after study
have shown that one of the least effective ways to stimulate the
economy is to put more money into the pockets of the rich. The
wealthiest few are more likely to save that money rather than invest it
in our economy. CBO has found that of all the things we could do to
stimulate the economy, tax breaks for the rich people in this country
have the worst record of encouraging economic growth. And
irresponsible, because this bill will add billions and billions of
dollars onto our Nation's debt. None of these tax cuts are paid for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. McGOVERN. We just came through a campaign in which everybody
talked about the need for deficit reduction. The bipartisan Bowles-
Simpson commission made it clear that we are on an unsustainable
course. When they presented their report, everybody in this town nodded
gravely and said this is important work. Yet here we are, less than a
month later, making the problem worse.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the underlying legislation as written.
I know we will have an opportunity to improve this bill by supporting
an amendment to pare back some of the estate tax cuts for the
wealthiest estates in America. I urge my colleagues to support that
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. We must do better than this.
Future generations are counting on us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Grandfather
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my distinguished colleague from California (Mr.
Dreier) for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to make it clear I am opposed to allowing
tax increases to go into effect on January 1. However, I am also
opposed to this rule and the underlying bill.
It's very interesting to hear our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle arguing against the tax bill before us today because of their
concerns that we're adding to the deficit. We didn't hear those
arguments when they were voting for the trillion-dollar stimulus and
all the other trillions they have voted for in the past 4 years. In
fact, their stories and those of the President have changed
dramatically over the past few days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put
into the Record an article in American Thinker, December 14, ``Tax Cuts
Clearly Explained.'' The article does a really good job of explaining
the flip-flops on the side of the Democrats.
I want to quote a couple of sentences from it. It says, ``The
Republican position was to keep tax rates where they are now and where
they've been since 2003. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates
only for those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious,
since they've been saying for about 10 years that the `Bush tax cuts'
went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats are arguing to keep
something they said never existed.'' So we find our friends again on
the other side of the aisle flip-flopping on this issue.
I'd also like to add a couple of more comments from this article.
``As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed Congress in
mid 2003, shortly after Republicans retook the Senate. From August 2003
to December 2007, over 8 million net new jobs were created and real GDP
grew almost 3 percent per year. At the same time, Federal revenues
increased by 2.3 percent of GDP, $785 billion, putting revenues above
the average level of 1960 to 2000, the 40 years before Bush.
Unemployment fell to 4.4 percent and the deficit fell to 1.2 percent of
GDP. Such was the catastrophe of 4 years of Bush's tax rates and
Republican-written Federal budgets.
``You will hear that this or that group, the top 2 percent of those
who inherit dad's farm, et cetera, does not `deserve' to have its taxes
kept at the current rate. There are only two alternatives for where
that money goes: the family that earned it or the government. If the
family doesn't `deserve' it, does the government?''
It appears from all the comments that our colleagues have made that
they believe that the money that the hardworking Americans earn belongs
to the government. As a member of the Rules Committee, I have seen up
close how the ruling Democrats have violated every promise they made to
run an open Congress but have shut out the opportunity to offer
amendments.
We should vote down this rule and allow any amendments to be offered.
[From American Thinker, Dec. 14, 2010]
Tax Cuts Clearly Explained
(By Randall Hoven)
If you go to the White House website, right at the top is a
bar you can click on to see ``Tax Cuts Clearly Explained.''
If you click, you see a video of one of President Obama's
economic advisors using a whiteboard to explain that
Republicans are bad, that Obama is above politics, and that
if Obama gets his way, jobs and growth and goodness will
spring forth.
The video starts out simply enough. Republicans want to
extend the Bush tax rates for everyone; Obama wants to leave
out the top 2% of income earners. It was all about the Bush
tax rates and for how long, and to whom, to extend them.
But then the video starts talking about a host of things
unrelated to those tax rates. The economist even lists them
on his whiteboard.
Unemployment insurance,
Earned income tax credit,
American opportunity tax credit,
Child tax credit,
Payroll tax,
Investment incentives.
The ``clear'' explanation is that since the current tax
rates for the top 2% would be extended another couple years,
this list of unrelated ``targeted and temporary'' tax cuts
must be added to the package to somehow offset them. The
concern was that extending current tax rates for the top 2%
would increase the deficit too much. So politicians
compromised in a way that would increase the deficit more
than either party's initial proposal. (King of like the way
they compromised on TARP in 2008. Remember ``sweeteners''?)
Since Congress got into the compromise act, tax credits for
ethanol, alternative fuels, and who knows what else have also
been added.
In the spirit of clarity, what follows is my attempt to
explain tax cuts.
The Republican position was to keep tax rates where they
are now and where they've been since 2003.
[[Page 22393]]
1. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates only for
those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious,
since they've been saying for about ten years that the ``Bush
tax cuts'' went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats
are arguing to keep something they said never existed.
2. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire
package, as currently proposed in the Senate, would add $858
billion to the 2011-2020 deficit. Without it, the 2011-2020
deficit would be $6,246 B. So this package theoretically
increases the ten-year deficit by 14%.
3. Of that $858 B, about $544 B comes from keeping current
tax rates; the rest comes from the new goodies unrelated to
the Bush rates. So because Democrats said some part of that
$544 B adds too much to the deficit, they added another $314
B to the deficit. That is how compromise and ``the middle
way'' work in Washington.
4. The CBO calculates future revenues under the assumption
that tax rates have zero effect on the behavior of investors,
consumers, employers, etc. Congress forces the CBO to make
that assumption. Every economist this side of Paul Krugman
knows that that assumption is wrong. One such economist is
Christina Romer, President Obama's first choice as chief of
his economic advisors. She said a tax increase of 1% of GDP
reduces GDP by about 1.84%. And she said that this year in a
published, peer-reviewed academic paper.
5. Another top economic adviser to President Obama, Larry
Summers, was more direct. ``If they do not pass this [tax cut
agreement] in the next couple of weeks, it will materially
increase the risk of the economy stalling out and that we
would have a double-dip [recession].'' Bill Clinton advised
that passing the tax cuts would ``minimize the chances that
it [the economy] will slip back [into recession].'' Again,
top Democrats say we must keep the Bush tax rates or the
recession resumes.
6. President Obama's view is that not keeping the Bush tax
rates on those making under $250,000 ``would be a grave
injustice'' and ``would deal a serious blow to our economic
recovery.'' Again, this is curious because Democrats keep
saying that Bush's tax cuts went only to the wealthiest
Americans and caused all the harm we now see to the economy.
But apparently, not continuing the Bush policy for 98% of
taxpayers would be a ``serious blow'' to the economy.
7. President Obama believes that keeping the current tax
rates for those making over $250,000 in a year ``would cost
us $700 billion'' and do ``very little to actually grow our
economy.'' He assures us that ``economists from all across
the political spectrum agree'' on that. I believed he polled
the same economists who said his stimulus would keep the
unemployment rate below 8%.
8. As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed
Congress in mid-2003, shortly after Republicans retook the
Senate. From August 2003 to December 2007, over eight million
net new jobs were created, and real GDP grew almost 3% per
year. At that same time, federal revenues increased by 2.3%
of GDP ($785 B), putting revenues above the average level of
1960-2000, the forty years before Bush. Unemployment fell to
4.4%, and the deficit fell to 1.2% of GDP. Such was the
catastrophe of four years of Bush's tax rates and Republican-
written federal budgets.
9. You will hear that this or that group (the top 2%, those
who inherit dad's farm, etc.) does not ``deserve'' to have
its taxes kept at the current rate. There are only two
alternatives for where that money goes: the family that
earned it, or the government. If the family doesn't
``deserve'' it, does the government.?
[In fact, it appears from spoken and written comments that
our colleagues think that the money that Americans earn
should all belong to the government.]
As usual, this is not about anything the Democrats say it
is about. If they are worried about the deficit, why did they
add to the deficit to get this deal?
Republicans would have compromised by simply extending the
current rates for two years instead of permanently. Obama saw
that bet and raised unemployment insurance, earned income tax
credit, American opportunity tax credit, child tax credit,
payroll tax, and investment incentives. Congressional
Democrats saw that bet and raised it ethanol and alternative
fuels subsidies.
This is all about the Democrats rewarding their interest
groups and blaming the certain deficit on Republicans. As
usual, the Stupid Party will see that bet, holding a pair of
deuces.
I'll try to clarify it with another analogy. A 700-pound
man goes to the doctor. The doctor says the man needs to
diet, and in fact prescribes a certain salad as the man's
meal for the next few months. The 700-pound man agrees to eat
the salad each meal--along with three roasted chickens, two
pounds of bacon, a large pizza, and four cheeseburgers with
the works. In his view, he compromised with his doctor.
Then when the man weighs 800 pounds after a few months, he
blames his doctor.
Now you play doctor. Would you make that compromise, given
you'll be sued for malpractice if the man gains weight?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time to speak on this legislation.
It is very clear, because of the fragile state of our economy, that
there are many important provisions in this tax bill before us. For
middle income families, it means their tax rates will not go up. For
people in need of unemployment insurance, it extends those benefits
another 13 months. And for families struggling to make ends meet, this
bill extends tax credits for them so that they can pay for their
children's education and they can take care of their children. These
are lifelines for hardworking families that are struggling in this
economy.
I have fought my entire public career for these tax breaks to support
middle income families to make college more affordable. These
provisions help some 155 million Americans in this economy.
But that's not all that's in this tax bill. Tragically, these 155
million Americans were held hostage to a ransom that the Republicans
would only help these families, help these individuals, help these
students struggling in school if we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest
people in this country. It is as if the wealthy don't have enough money
and struggling middle class families have too much. But that was the
price that was extracted for this legislation to help these 155 million
Americans struggle through this economic downturn.
So we see that some $25 billion will be lavished on 6,600 of the
wealthiest estates in this country. These are estates in excess of $10
million for a husband and wife. These are estates that have used all of
the tax laws to minimize the size of that estate to their advantage
before they pay the estate tax. But the Republicans were not prepared
to give unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are
struggling to find work unless they could provide this money to the
wealthiest people in the country. This is not fair, it will
unnecessarily increase the deficit, and it has no stimulative value.
Economist after economist has told us what happens with this money
when you give it to the wealthiest people in the country. They put it
in the bank, and some day they may use it or they won't use it. It's
not like middle income families that have to pay the rent, pay the
lights, send their kids to school. It's a completely different
operation.
{time} 1110
So no stimulative value to giving billions and billions of dollars to
the richest 2 percent of the people in the country; it's not fair in
terms of the resources of this country being used for those individuals
while other families struggle; and it creates deficit unnecessarily. If
you're going to create the deficit, at least it ought to be
stimulative, at least it ought to grow the economy; that's not what
this does. It should be rejected for this reason because this deficit,
beginning the first of the year, will start immediately coming out of
the hides of programs that support these very same middle income
families and the education of their children.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend and California colleague, the gentleman from Elk Grove, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Senate for passing the tax relief measure
yesterday and I certainly hope that the House passes it today.
According to the CBO, this bill comprises $136 billion of additional
spending. That's true, but that's for $721 billion of tax relief. That
means that 15 percent of this bill is spending; the other 85 percent of
it is tax relief. That means no across-the-board increase in income
taxes next year, no AMT biting deeper into middle class families, a
death tax that is a third less than what it otherwise would have been,
threatening far fewer family farms and family businesses with
extinction.
If this relief fails, when the ball drops at Times Square on New
Year's Eve,
[[Page 22394]]
Americans will have just been walloped by a tax tsunami the likes of
which we haven't seen since the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Families and small
businesses will be spending the new year struggling to pay thousands of
dollars of new taxes. A family making $50,000 will see at least $3,000
more taken from its paycheck. A small businessperson whose shop makes
$300,000 will have to cut another $8,400--perhaps the difference
between a part-time and full-time job for an employee.
From the left we're told we should raise taxes on the very rich who
make over $200,000 because they don't pay their fair share. Well,
according to the IRS, those folks earn 36 percent of all income; they
pay 49 percent of all income taxes. But a lot of them aren't people at
all. Half of the income earned by small businesses will be hit by these
tax increases. These are the job generators that we are depending upon
to end the nightmare of unemployment for millions of American families.
To confiscate billions of dollars more from them and then expect more
jobs to come of it is simply insane.
Some of my fellow conservatives object to the 15 percent of this bill
that spends money we don't have and I agree, but that damage can be
corrected through offsetting spending reductions next year. The new
Republican House majority can do that without the Senate or the
President simply by refusing to appropriate funds--and it is committed
to doing so. But it cannot rescind the taxes next year without the
Senate and the President, who have made their opposition to just such a
clean bill abundantly clear. And even if such a retroactive bill could
be passed by spring, these families and businesses won't get their tax
overpayments refunded to them until they file their returns a year
later.
Mr. Speaker, massive tax increases under Hoover turned the recession
of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. Let that not be the legacy of
this Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time.
It is fairly extraordinary to listen to the debate coming from the
Republican side of the aisle. We are headed toward--before this vote--a
$1.3 trillion deficit next year. With this single vote, we will
increase the deficit, the debt of the United States, by $430 billion
this year and $430 billion next year.
Republicans want to pretend that somehow if you cut your income, you
can still balance your budget. That would surprise most Americans. Most
Americans don't cut back hours at work when they can't make ends meet
at home unless they are forced to by their employer.
These tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, were put into effect at a time of
surplus. The rationale was give people back their money, we have a
surplus as far as the eye can see. Now we're teetering on the edge of
having the United States of America's debt rating downgraded. And if
you increase the debt next year by $1.7 trillion--and you say, well,
don't worry, we'll take care of it with some cuts. Cuts? $450 billion
in 1 year? I don't think so, unless basically you eliminate virtually
the entire government, close the prisons, turn the prisoners out, open
the borders, no Coast Guard, and we go on down the list. $450 billion?
No, you're not going to do that, and you know you're not going to do
that. You're just pretending.
But even worse, $111 billion of this is going to come from Social
Security. The Social Security trust fund has been inviolate since it
was set up by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and wise men 75 years ago. He
said this will be an earned benefit; Congress can't touch the money and
can't cut the benefits. No, but what we're going to do in this deal,
constructed by the Republicans--no Democrat has ever proposed this, no
hearing has ever been held on it--is we're going to give a tax holiday.
But don't worry, we'll make the Social Security trust fund whole; we'll
go out and borrow $111 billion from China and we'll inject it back into
the Social Security trust fund. What an absurdity and what a threat to
the future of Social Security because next year they'll say, hey, we
can't afford to subsidize Social Security, we can't afford to borrow
$111 billion from China, but don't let that tax go back up, that will
be the largest tax increase on working people in the history of the
United States--just like we're hearing now. We go back to the Clinton-
era taxes, the largest tax increase in the history of the United
States. We created 23 million jobs during the Clinton administration,
we balanced the budget of the United States of America, and we did that
under the tax rates that would come back into effect on the 1st. But
now you're going to attack Social Security, hold the unemployed
hostage, and reduce the income of the United States and increase our
debt. What a pathetic position to take.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very
thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Livonia, Michigan (Mr.
McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to
the underlying bill.
Amidst our tumultuous age of globalization wherein big government's
restructuring is not merely desirable but inevitable, the sovereign
people's congressional servants must facilitate the conditions for
sustainable economic growth so people can work, and preserve and
promote America's economic preeminence in the world.
To accomplish these vital tasks, government must adopt deep and
enduring tax relief, and spending, deficit and debt reduction. These
policies are neither novel nor fashionable. They are necessary.
Therefore, because I oppose raising taxes, increasing deficits and
debt, and worsening the entitlement crisis, I fundamentally object to
this compromised tax bill's following provisions:
One, a permanent tax increase in exchange for a temporary tax
reprieve is mistaken since any and all tax increases in a recession
retard a recovery.
And, two, a raid on Social Security requiring increased Federal debt
to fund a temporary tax gimmick that will not increase sustainable
employment is also mistaken.
Despite its proponents' best intentions, this bill will not end the
suffering of the unemployed and economically anxious Americans. It will
prolong it. For we cannot delay the day of big government's
restructuring; and, in endeavoring to do so, we make the inevitable
more painful, more prolonged, and, because it was unnecessary, more
deplorable.
Finally, to those Republicans who claim no choice but to vote for a
flawed bill now rather than wait 3 weeks for a better one, I disagree
and offer an analogy. Imagine prior to the Battle of the Little Big
Horn General Custer looking at his troops and saying: ``We must strike
now before there are more of us.''
I disagree with this and urge my colleagues to reject the bill.
{time} 1120
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
I am in a lonely place today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax cut compromise.
Although our economy is in recovery, it remains fragile. If we don't
pass an extension of the tax cuts now, every American will see smaller
paychecks and higher taxes in January.
This compromise provides needed assistance to every American: an
extension of the unemployment insurance that the CBO says will add
600,000 jobs; an extension of Earned Income Tax Credits and Child Tax
Credits for lower income families; an AMT patch for middle income
families; a 2 percent cut in the payroll tax that provides up to $2,000
in tax relief for workers; a 2-year extension of the income tax rates
for all Americans; and business tax cuts that will spur up to $50
billion in private sector investment in the economy, which is
desperately needed.
According to economist Mark Zandi, this compromise will add a full
percentage point to the gross domestic
[[Page 22395]]
product next year. Although we are in recovery, it is not a robust
recovery. We need all of the stimulus we can get. This isn't a perfect
bill, but I support the bipartisan compromise.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, in this dealing-making, it became more important to get
a deal--any deal--than to secure an agreement that reflects our
American values and accomplishes our goal of renewed economic growth.
This bill is largely a mishmash of rejected Republican ideas that
cost too much to accomplish too little. Under this misbegotten deal, we
will borrow immense amounts of money from the Chinese and others to
provide the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans with a tax cut that is
greater than the median income of a Central Texas family for an entire
year. This is the same fortunate 1 percent, for the most part, that
took two-thirds of all of the income gains in the country during the
heart of the Bush years. That is not fair, and it will not encourage
significant economic growth.
The Republicans will rule this House for the next 2 years. Let's not
give them an early start today. I would vote for a bill that creates
more jobs and reduces the debt. This is not it.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and the underlying bill.
I am very excited that President Obama has demonstrated that he
believes in keeping taxes low for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, you know, as I talk to people in my district and across
the country, people like the fact that the Democrats are the party of
staying out of their personal business, that we are not doing the
moralizing of how they should live their lives--live your own life;
make your own decisions--that we are the party of personal
accountability and of personal responsibility. Yet they're always
concerned in the back of their minds that the Democrats are going to
raise their taxes. That is something I always hear.
Oh, I like the Democrats because of the liberty issues, but you know,
I always worry they're going to raise my taxes.
Well, I am proud to say that we are conclusively proving here today
that the Democratic Party is the party of low taxes and that President
Obama has a strong pro-growth agenda to keep taxes low for all
Americans.
Let me add, by the way, that this tax cut that we are supporting
today most benefits middle class Americans. They receive the true
benefit from this tax cut. Families making $40,000 a year receive about
a 7 percent rate reduction through this act. For families making
$60,000 a year, it's 6.1 percent, all the way up to families making $10
million at 4.6 percent.
So this is a progressive tax cut for America. It is one that puts
money into the hands of middle class families, who are those who need
it the most. They're the families making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a
year. To tell families making $50,000 a year that they somehow need to
come up with $800 or $1,000 more a year in taxes when they're not
getting raises is going to put them out of their homes. They're
struggling to make mortgage payments as it is.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, there are a few people making over $1
million. Many of them say, You can raise my taxes. It won't affect my
quality of life. But for the people who need it the most, the people
making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $90,000 a year, who are struggling to
get by--a kid in college--who are struggling to make their mortgage
payments, this bill and President Obama have delivered tax relief to
them.
In addition, in the midst of a recession, we cannot allow
unemployment insurance to run out. Over 2,500 people a week in my home
State of Colorado, if we don't act today and renew unemployment
insurance, will lose their benefits--again, worsening the housing
crisis, reducing the ability of their continuing to make their mortgage
or rent payments, and forcing them to become liabilities rather than
assets.
We will get them back to work, Mr. Speaker, especially with this pro-
growth set of tax cuts that will encourage investment in our economy.
We will get these Americans back to work, and we will ensure that
everybody someday has the honor of paying at a higher tax bracket.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds, and I would like to ask him to yield to me, if
he would.
Mr. POLIS. I yield to my colleague from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to
congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement and to say
that, at the end of his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the
notion of job creation/economic growth as a policy. Obviously ensuring
that we don't increase taxes for any American who is paying income
taxes is key to that.
I would appreciate hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.
Mr. POLIS. If I could request an additional 30 seconds to answer.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this tax cut that President Obama and the
Republicans and Democrats are delivering here today will encourage
solid growth in our economy by keeping taxes low and by giving some
predictability over a 2-year period so people can make investments and
know that the government is not coming in to take their money but will
let them keep their money to reinvest in the economy.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my colleague for his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
speak out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Mississippi is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us, on a nearly trillion-
dollar bill between spending and tax cuts, apparently does not allow
for any time for the opponents of this measure. If you look at page 2,
line 4, it says this resolution allows for 3 hours equally divided and
controlled between the chair and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
It is my understanding that both of those gentlemen are for the bill.
What guarantee do those of us who oppose increasing the deficit by a
trillion dollars have of being able to voice our objections if this
rule passes?
If Mr. McGovern would like to answer that question, I would welcome
it.
Mr. McGOVERN. My understanding is that there is an informal agreement
that there will be time designated for those in opposition; at least an
hour.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, there is no guarantee for
those of us who are opposed to raising the national debt by $1
trillion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 14,
nays 385, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 33, as follows:
[[Page 22396]]
[Roll No. 639]
YEAS--14
Bright
Cao
Dahlkemper
Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Lamborn
Pascrell
Taylor
Tiahrt
Visclosky
NAYS--385
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Maloney
NOT VOTING--33
Baird
Berry
Brown (SC)
Cardoza
Chandler
Cohen
Conyers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Delahunt
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Foster
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Grijalva
Kline (MN)
Linder
Maffei
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Platts
Pomeroy
Sarbanes
Skelton
Turner
Wamp
Whitfield
Young (FL)
{time} 1217
Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado, LIPINSKI, RODRIGUEZ, HEINRICH, MARSHALL,
HOLT, ORTIZ, GEORGE MILLER of California, MORAN of Virginia and Ms.
SHEA-PORTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LAMBORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from
California has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, just to remind Members where we are in this debate, we
are about to debate and take up a measure that would, number one,
preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while
we have a $1.3 trillion deficit in the current year. We would also, if
this bill were to pass, create a tax exemption for estates of up to $10
million. That is for 6,600 individuals, which brings to mind, I will
paraphrase Winston Churchill who said, it has been some time since so
many have been asked to do so much for so few--and with no legitimate
reason, I might add.
We are also talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund for
the next 2 years, a total of $111 billion, and increasing the deficit
by about $1 trillion, which will require us to exceed the national debt
limit. So in April or May of next year, with this bill passing, we will
definitely exceed the current $14 trillion debt limit that the country
has.
I had a fair opportunity to negotiate contracts when I was an
ironworker; and one thing I learned, and it applies to this agreement
with the Republican Senate, there's a big difference between compromise
and surrender.
{time} 1220
What this bill represents is a complete surrender of Democratic
principles and standing up for working people and making them carry an
undue burden under this new tax law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
hardworking colleague from Columbus, Indiana, who offered some very
thoughtful remarks and endured the Committee on Rules last night, Mr.
Pence.
Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, since last summer, I've been among those voices in this
Congress calling for action to prevent a tax increase that would affect
every American just a few short weeks from now. So I rise with a heavy
heart today to say that as I look at this short-term tax deal
negotiated by the White House with congressional leaders, that I have
concluded after much study that it is a bad deal for taxpayers, it will
do little to create jobs, and I cannot support it. Let me say, though,
that I have the deepest respect for my colleagues on the Republican
side of the aisle who may differ with me on this issue in the final
analysis. This is a tough call.
No Republican in this Congress wants to see taxes raised on any
American. We all know what we should be doing today is voting to extend
all the current tax rates permanently. The reality is that uncertainty
is the enemy
[[Page 22397]]
of prosperity. And simply by extending some of the tax rates that are
on the books today for a few short years, we will not create the
certainty necessary to encourage businesses to take out loans, to
expend resources in ways that will put people back to work. We just
know that.
I was back in Muncie, Indiana, just a couple of days ago. I had a
banker walk up to me at Rotary, and he said, What are you going to do
on this? Sounds like a tough deal. And I said, You know, I hadn't
decided at that point. He said, Well, nobody is going to come walking
into my office to sign a 5-year note on a 2-year Tax Code.
So why are we doing 2 years? Well, there's an election in 2 years. I
get that. There are people that, for whatever reasons, want to re-
debate this in 2 years. I get that. I just don't get how it actually
gets people back to work. And with regard to the spending in this bill,
we can help families that are hurting in this economy, particularly
during this cherished holiday season. But we can also figure out how to
pay for it.
Lastly, let me say the American people have spoken on November 2, Mr.
Speaker. The American people did not vote for more deficits or more
stimulus or more uncertainty in the Tax Code. But that's just what this
lame duck Congress is about to give them. I think we can do better.
Every Republican in this Congress would like the opportunity to do
better. Sadly, this rule does not permit us to even have a fair up-or-
down vote on extending all the current tax rates, and I'm profoundly
disappointed by that.
And so I rise in opposition to this rule, but I also rise in
opposition to the underlying bill. We can do better. We must do better
on behalf of hurting families and Americans who want to go back to
work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. I'll be voting ``yes'' on the amendment, and if it
fails, as I expect it will, I'll be voting ``yes'' on the bill. I'll
vote ``yes'' on the amendment, because we ought to have a fair estate
tax in this country. But, instead, Republicans insist that we increase
the deficit $28 billion over the next 2 years in order to provide the
lowest tax rates in 80 years on the richest few dozen families in each
of our States.
We should care about the deficit. And to say that the tax rate
included in the amendment is unfair is to say that every Republican
voted for an unfair tax when they voted for the Bush tax law that was
applicable to 2009.
Furthermore, another problem with the estate tax in the bill is that
it provides a rate of tax for those deaths that occur in 2010 that is
less than zero because the richest families can choose between a zero
tax rate or huge write-offs on their income tax, which might be even
lower, and they'll get the best possible tax advice.
Finally, under this bill you're going to have some people who realize
that if the patriarch of the family dies this year, they save tens of
millions of dollars over next year. I hope that no plugs are pulled.
I am going to vote for the bill only because of one question,
Compared to what? If we do not send this bill to the President's desk
this year, he will certainly sign a worse bill next year. It is not
clear that House Democrats were at the table in the December
negotiations, but it is clear that House Republicans will be at the
table for the negotiations in January on this bill. The President and
Democrats in the Senate have already agreed to this deal and I fear
that they would agree to something a little bit worse. So it is with
great reluctance that I will vote for this bill, should the amendment
fail.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to make sure that we classify
this not as class warfare, if you will, but a Good Samaritan waving the
flag. And, frankly, if we take the best of America and recognize that
working people need help, the unemployment insurance that is part of
this bill is a valid part of it. The child tax credit, the payroll
holiday, all of those speak to the vision of this Nation that we have
the willingness to share.
We understand when men and women on the front lines of Iraq and
Afghanistan, they fight not for any one class or any one community.
They fight for America. So when we provide an estate tax that blurs the
understanding of America, that we need an estate tax that is $5 million
and $10 million, we're not telling the truth. The present law provides
for most Americans, $3.5 million for an individual, $7 million for
those who are couples; provides for family businesses; it provide for
farmers. It works--and it has worked. It is not necessarily the best.
But to give $25 billion to $28 billion unnecessarily that would go and
take away from education and Social Security and Medicare, domestic
spending that is necessary, is a crime.
So this is not about fighting against someone who has a few more
dollars than the next person. It's to do what we're sent here to do and
make sure that the capitalistic system works for everybody, including
those who are now unemployed. Let's get our senses together. Let's get
the Senate to understand what the real deal is. Fight for everybody,
not just a small special interest group. It's time to stand up and be
counted. And I'd like to see this rule go forward simply because I want
to put it to them that you can't spend $28 billion and waste it on
those who don't need it.
{time} 1230
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our
very, very, very diligent and hardworking ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr.
Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman-to-be of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California, my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a bad compromise that's before us, but it is
also not the best compromise. It's not a bad deal, but it's not the
best deal.
The gentleman from California who spoke on the Democratic side just a
few minutes ago I think said it best when he said, In January, our
Republican friends will be at the table. We are making a compromise
today on the Republican side, in my opinion, that we don't have to
make. I think the tax cuts should be permanent, not temporary. I think
the additional spending should be paid for now, not just added to the
deficit.
A funny thing happened in November: We elected over 80 new
Republicans. The majority is going from about 255 Democrats to 242
Republicans. You cannot tell me that the week before Christmas that
Americans in the business community are deciding what their capital
investments are going to be for 2011. Those decisions have already been
made. So I am going to vote against the rule and, with reluctance, vote
against the bill, not because it's a bad compromise but because we can
do better. And I fully expect in January, when the Republicans become
the majority party in the House, that we will do better.
So again, this is not the worst bill that has ever been before us,
but it could be better and it should be better, and so I would ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. For the first time approaching this rule, it is my
understanding that if I want to stop $23 billion from increasing the
deficit by knocking out a Senate provision and substituting a Pomeroy,
in order to do that I would have to accept the remainder of the Senate
bill. I don't think Members of this House should have to make that
choice.
It seems to me that if you believe that it is inequitable for a
handful of people to receive such a large amount of money at the
expense of the deficit, at the expense of discretionary spending, that
we should have an opportunity, one, to vote against the Senate
[[Page 22398]]
bill in its present form that does that, and two, to vote for Pomeroy,
which would allow us to at least control the amount of tax relief that
we give to estate taxes.
I yield back the balance of my time, but I do hope we get a rule that
will allow us to express exactly how we feel, Republican or Democrat,
because if you're not a part of the deal, it's hard to be supporting
it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr.
Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, like all major bills that we do here, there is good and
bad in this bill. There are things I like and things I don't like. That
is a normal circumstance here. But in the final analysis I think people
have to ask themselves one simple question: Are we ever going to get to
the place where we pay our bills? This bill doesn't do it.
In 2002, the last time this House had the opportunity to be fiscally
responsible--and that's not the same thing as fiscally conservative or
liberal; it's responsible--we voted to let the PAYGO rules go and the
results are where we are today. This bill will kill our children, with
very little input or benefit at the moment. It is not an emergency.
I want a tax cut just like everyone else, but I also consider myself,
and I am a social liberal. I do believe in Social Security and Medicare
and senior housing and all the other things that we do here. I do
believe in them. I know that others don't, and I respect those who want
to cut those programs. Let's have that debate, but let's not do it
through the back door. If you believe in those programs, it is
incumbent upon us to pay for them. Voting for this bill simply empowers
those who want to cut those programs anyway, and I cannot, in good
conscience, support that.
This bill must go down even if the deal we get next year is worse. I
understand that, but it's not the right thing to do for those of us who
believe in the programs we have.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike share the goal of job
creation and deficit reduction; we regularly hear that argued from both
sides of the aisle. The best way for us to do that is to encourage
economic growth. Economic growth is the key to dealing with job
creation and deficit reduction.
Mr. Speaker, I don't like this bill that is before us, but I like
even less the idea of increasing the tax burden on working Americans--
in fact, putting into place what would be tantamount to the largest tax
increase that we have ever seen.
I am very pleased that President Obama is beginning to embrace the
John F. Kennedy vision for economic growth, the vision that has
recognized that reducing marginal rates does in fact create jobs and
create more opportunity, and the famous John F. Kennedy line, ``the
rising tide lifts all boats.'' The fact that President Obama is now
moving into that direction is a very positive thing.
He has also, on another issue that is going to create jobs, done so
on the issue of trade. I am pleased that he wants us to move ahead with
what will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history
of the world, that being the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. I think
it is imperative for us to do this in Colombia and Panama as well so
that we can create union and non-union jobs, good manufacturing jobs
right here in the United States of America. That is an issue that I
hope we are going to be able to address early next year.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is the right thing for us to do,
for us to make sure that we don't increase taxes on working Americans.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to close simply by saying that I
agree with many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to
express their concern about how these tax cuts--mostly for the rich--
will add an incredible debt burden on the backs of our children and our
grandchildren. We can do better than this.
I am also worried because I think what my friends on the Republican
side want to do is basically kind of take tax cuts for the rich off the
table next year when they use a budget axe to go after domestic
spending.
I would just say to my colleagues that as we have this debate on tax
cuts, there are a lot of people in this country who this debate is
meaningless to because they're falling through the cracks. We have an
obligation to help strengthen the safety net in this country. And I
worry about the agenda that my Republican colleagues are going to
pursue next year. I worry that it's going to be on the backs of the
most vulnerable in this country, and that is wrong. We have an
obligation, a moral obligation to be able to make sure that everybody
in this country not only has opportunity, but is also not allowed to
fall through the cracks.
We have a hunger problem in this country. We have children who go to
sleep at night hungry in the richest country in the world. We should be
ashamed of ourselves. We can do better than add to the deficit by
giving more tax cuts to the wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I withdraw the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is withdrawn.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill of the House of the
following title:
H.R. 6516. An act to make technical corrections to
provisions of law enacted by the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2010.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
____________________
BANKRUPTCY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2010
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6198) to amend title 11 of the
United States Code to make technical corrections; and for related
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
On page 3, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the
following: ``and
``(F) in paragraph (51D), by inserting `of the filing'
after `date' the 1st place it appears,''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on November 19, the Senate passed an amended version of
H.R. 6198, the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010. H.R. 6198
[[Page 22399]]
makes a series of purely technical corrections in response to certain
drafting errors resulting from the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
The Senate amendment simply removes from the bill a provision that
corrected a misnumbered paragraph.
It is our understanding that some believe that this provision, which
corrects a clear error in bankruptcy law, may possibly cause confusion
with respect to other laws that currently contain cross-references to
the incorrectly numbered paragraph. While some might question the need
for the Senate amendment, we are willing to accommodate the concern.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment
to H.R. 6198.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bankruptcy Technical
Corrections Act of 2010, as amended by the Senate.
The House passed the original version of the bill in late September
to make purely technical changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Then, as now,
these changes are not intended to make any change to substantive
bankruptcy law.
{time} 1250
Instead, these changes clean up the text of the Bankruptcy Code to
make it easier to use by lawyers and judges.
The Senate amendment strikes one provision of the House bill which
would have renumbered the section of the Bankruptcy Code that defines
the term ``timeshare plan.'' Rather than define ``timeshare plan'' in
their own State codes, many State legislatures have chosen to
incorporate the Federal definition by reference into their State law.
The Senate amendment reflects a concern that changing the section
number of the Bankruptcy Code definition would have resulted in
inaccurate cross references in numerous State codes.
The necessity of the Senate amendment highlights the perils that
result when States legislate by reference to provisions of Federal law.
The States are sovereign in our system of constitutional federalism and
they should exercise an independent duty to legislate without respect
to mutable Federal laws.
The House bill, as amended, will clear up some existing confusion in
the bankruptcy community regarding provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
It is important that Federal law be technically sound so that the
intent of Congress is clear and judges do not use technical loopholes
to practice judicial activism.
In particular, it is important that the Bankruptcy Code be
technically sound because of the volume of bankruptcy filings during
this recession. As America continues to struggle with high
unemployment, bearish capital markets, and massive deficits, the
Bankruptcy Code is playing an increasingly important role in our
Nation's financial health. Unfortunately, that is the case.
As my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee stated when the House
first considered this bill, it is important that the Congressional
Record reflect the bipartisan acknowledgment that this bill does not,
and is not, intended to enact any substantive change to the Bankruptcy
Code. Lawyers and judges who practice bankruptcy law should not
understand any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any
substantive bankruptcy right. Similarly, no inference should be drawn
from the absence in this bill of a technical amendment to any other
part of the Bankruptcy Code.
With this understanding, I support the bankruptcy technical
amendments bill as amended by the Senate, and I share that with my
Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 6198.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PUBLIC CONTRACT LAW TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1107) to enact certain laws
relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public
Contracts''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:
Senate amendments:
On page 2, in the item related to chapter 35 in the
subtitle analysis, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
On page 7, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert ``In this
subtitle, the term ``supplies'' has the same meaning as the
terms ``item'' and ``item of supply''''.
On page 9, line 20, strike ``suppport'' and insert
``support''.
On page 25, lines 11 and 12, strike ``under section 5376 of
title 5'' and insert ``for level IV of the Executive
Schedule''.
On page 48, line 34, strike ``employee from State or local
governments'' and insert ``individual''.
On page 55, line 36, strike ``$2,500'' and insert
``$3,000''.
On page 56, line 15, strike ``$2,500'' and insert
``$3,000''.
On page 56, line 19, strike ``$2,500'' and insert
``$3,000''.
On page 77, line 1, strike ``his representatives'' and
insert ``representatives of the Comptroller General''.
On page 93, lines 18 and 19, strike ``under section 5376 of
title 5'' and insert ``for level IV of the Executive
Schedule''.
On page 110, line 21, strike ``AND'' and insert ``OR''.
Beginning on page 131, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 132, line 19, and insert the following:
``(c) Contract Period.--The period of a task order contract
entered into under this section, including all periods of
extensions of the contract under options, modifications, or
otherwise, may not exceed 5 years unless a longer period is
specifically authorized in a law that is applicable to the
contract.''
On page 185, line 39, strike ``amount'' and insert
``amounts''.
On page 185, line 40, strike ``amount'' and insert
``amounts''.
On page 186, line 1, strike ``amount'' and insert
``amounts''.
On page 201, line 13, strike ``under section 5376 of title
5'' and insert ``for level IV of the Executive Schedule''.
On page 204, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(3) Person.--The term ``person'' means a corporation,
partnership, business association of any kind, trust, joint-
stock company, or individual.''
On page 204, line 11, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
On page 204, line 14, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 204, line 17, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 204, line 20, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
On page 204, line 24, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
On page 204, line 31, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
On page 208, line 6, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 209, line 3, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 213, line 36, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 213, line 39, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 8, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 13, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 16, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 19, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 24, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 27, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 214, line 39, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 215, line 3, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 215, line 6, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
[[Page 22400]]
On page 215, line 10, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 215, line 13, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 215, line 16, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 215, line 19, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 217, line 28, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 219, line 30, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 219, line 33, strike ``(except section 3302)'' and
insert ``(except sections 3302, 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710,
and 4711)''.
On page 219, line 38, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 220, line 5, insert ``(Except Sections 1704 and
2303)'' after ``Division B''.
On page 220, line 8, insert ``(except sections 1704 and
2303)'' after ``division B''.
On page 220, line 13, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 220, line 16, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 220, line 18, insert ``(except sections 1704 and
2303)'' after ``division B''.
On page 220, line 36, insert ``(except sections 1704 and
2303)'' after ``division B''.
On page 221, line 5, insert ``(except sections 1704 and
2303)'' after ``division B''.
On page 221, line 13, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 221, line 16, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 221, line 26, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 221, line 29, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 222, line 18, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 222, line 22, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 222, line 37, insert ``(except sections 3302,
3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711)'' after ``division C''.
On page 223, line 25, insert ``(except sections 1704 and
2303)'' after ``division b''.
On page 236, strike ``2006'' in the column relating to
``Date''.
On page 236, strike the item related to Public Law 109-364.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. CHU. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1107 codifies into positive law as title 41, United
States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to public
contracts. This is a noncontroversial bill that is not intended to make
any substantive changes in the law. The Office of Law Revision Counsel
periodically suggests to the committee of jurisdiction appropriate
revisions to the United States Code in light of the enactment of
codified laws. These changes are purely technical in nature. As is
typical with the codification process, a number of non-substantive
revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a
more coherent overall structure.
Similar legislation has been introduced and favorably reported in
each of the past two Congresses. It passed the House in May of last
year. While it has been awaiting action in the Senate, a few additional
technical corrections were identified, and they have been incorporated
in the version that passed the Senate and that we are considering
today.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1107, a bill proposed by the Office of
Law Revision Counsel, to update and approve the codification of title
41 of the United States Code. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction
over law revision bills, and this particular bill deals with the title
addressing public contracts.
The Judiciary Committee considered and approved a similar bill last
Congress, but it was ultimately not taken up by the House before the
end of the Congress. H.R. 1107 and similar law revision bills are
important because they ensure that the U.S. Code is up to date,
accurate, and usable. I am glad to support this legislation today.
In closing, certainly the floor has been in chaos this afternoon, but
we would like to take care of these Judiciary Committee suspension
bills so we can get them done before the end of the year, and I
appreciate my colleague taking the floor as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules
and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 1107.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
AUTHORIZING PILOT PROGRAM FOR PATENT CASES
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 628) to establish a pilot program in
certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of
expertise in patent cases among district judges.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established a program, in each of
the United States district courts designated under subsection
(b), under which--
(A) those district judges of that district court who
request to hear cases under which 1 or more issues arising
under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant
variety protection are required to be decided, are designated
by the chief judge of the court to hear those cases;
(B) cases described in subparagraph (A) are randomly
assigned to the judges of the district court, regardless of
whether the judges are designated under subparagraph (A);
(C) a judge not designated under subparagraph (A) to whom a
case is assigned under subparagraph (B) may decline to accept
the case; and
(D) a case declined under subparagraph (C) is randomly
reassigned to 1 of those judges of the court designated under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Senior judges.--Senior judges of a district court may
be designated under paragraph (1)(A) if at least 1 judge of
the court in regular active service is also so designated.
(3) Right to transfer cases preserved.--This section shall
not be construed to limit the ability of a judge to request
the reassignment of or otherwise transfer a case to which the
judge is assigned under this section, in accordance with
otherwise applicable rules of the court.
(b) Designation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall designate not less
than 6 United States district courts, in at least 3 different
judicial circuits, in which the program established under
subsection (a) will be carried out.
(2) Criteria for designations.--
(A) In general.--The Director shall make designations under
paragraph (1) from--
(i) the 15 district courts in which the largest number of
patent and plant variety protection cases were filed in the
most recent calendar year that has ended; or
(ii) the district courts that have adopted, or certified to
the Director the intention to adopt, local rules for patent
and plant variety protection cases.
[[Page 22401]]
(B) Selection of courts.--From amongst the district courts
that satisfy the criteria for designation under this
subsection, the Director shall select--
(i) 3 district courts that each have at least 10 district
judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether
under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a
temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at
least 3 judges of the court have made the request under
subsection (a)(1)(A); and
(ii) 3 district courts that each have fewer than 10
district judges authorized to be appointed by the President,
whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code,
or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and
at least 2 judges of the court have made the request under
subsection (a)(1)(A).
(c) Duration.--The program established under subsection (a)
shall terminate 10 years after the end of the 6-month period
described in subsection (b).
(d) Applicability.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall apply in a district court designated
under subsection (b) only to cases commenced on or after the
date of such designation.
(e) Reports to Congress.--
(1) In general.--At the times specified in paragraph (2),
the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, in consultation with the chief judge of each
of the district courts designated under subsection (b) and
the Director of the Federal Judicial Center, shall submit to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate a report on the pilot program established under
subsection (a). The report shall include--
(A) an analysis of the extent to which the program has
succeeded in developing expertise in patent and plant variety
protection cases among the district judges of the district
courts so designated;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which the program has
improved the efficiency of the courts involved by reason of
such expertise;
(C) with respect to patent cases handled by the judges
designated pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) and judges not so
designated, a comparison between the 2 groups of judges with
respect to--
(i) the rate of reversal by the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, of such cases on the issues of claim
construction and substantive patent law; and
(ii) the period of time elapsed from the date on which a
case is filed to the date on which trial begins or summary
judgment is entered;
(D) a discussion of any evidence indicating that litigants
select certain of the judicial districts designated under
subsection (b) in an attempt to ensure a given outcome; and
(E) an analysis of whether the pilot program should be
extended to other district courts, or should be made
permanent and apply to all district courts.
(2) Timetable for reports.--The times referred to in
paragraph (1) are--
(A) not later than the date that is 5 years and 3 months
after the end of the 6-month period described in subsection
(b); and
(B) not later than 5 years after the date described in
subparagraph (A).
(3) Periodic reports.--The Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the
chief judge of each of the district courts designated under
subsection (b) and the Director of the Federal Judicial
Center, shall keep the committees referred to in paragraph
(1) informed, on a periodic basis while the pilot program is
in effect, with respect to the matters referred to in
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. CHU. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to create a pilot program that will
enhance district court expertise in patent cases.
Patent litigation is complex and highly technical. This makes
litigation expensive, time consuming, and unpredictable. Moreover, the
reversal rate of district court decisions is high, hovering around 50
percent. The bill before us today, H.R. 628, seeks to increase
efficiency and consistency in patent and plant variety protection
litigation and reduce the reversal rate.
The pilot program created by this bill would enable interested judges
in certain district courts to develop expertise in adjudicating patent
and plant variety protection cases. This will create a cadre of judges
who have advanced knowledge of patent and plant variety protection due
to more intensified experience in handling the cases, along with
special education and career development opportunities.
By providing judges with more training and experience in patent law,
this country will have fairer and more predictable decisions resulting
in a positive effect on the economy as a whole, as businesses will be
able to allocate more time to inventing and less time litigating.
The program would involve six of the Nation's 94 judicial districts
on a strictly voluntary basis. Note this is just a pilot program; and
unless Congress chooses to renew it, it will automatically expire after
10 years. The bill mandates reporting requirements to Congress that
will help guide our future efforts to further improve the patent
system. We will monitor the effects of this program closely.
{time} 1300
H.R. 628 has bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and broad
support from the patent bar and affected industry and trade groups. In
2006, a nearly identical bill, H.R. 5418, was reported by the Judiciary
Committee and passed the House under suspension. The legislation passed
the House again under suspension in the last Congress. This Congress,
back in March of 2009, this House passed H.R. 628. This amended version
before us today expands the number of districts that are eligible to be
chosen for this program.
I want to particularly note the efforts of my friends on both sides
of the aisle, Representative Issa and Representative Schiff, whose
tireless and substantial personal efforts shepherded this bill from
start to finish--and we are close to the finish line.
I urge my colleagues to once again join me in supporting this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
It is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too
time-consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 628 addresses these
concerns by authorizing a pilot program in certain United States
district courts to promote patent expertise among participating judges.
The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that
fewer than 1 percent of all the cases in United States district courts,
on average, are patent cases and that a district court judge typically
has a patent case proceed through trial once every 7 years.
Nevertheless, these cases account for 10 percent of complex cases, and
they require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial
resources.
Notwithstanding the investment of additional time and resources, the
rate of reversal on claim construction issues--the correct
interpretation of which is central to the proper resolution of these
cases--is unacceptably high. The premise underlying H.R. 628 is,
succinctly stated, practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges
who focus more attention on patent cases will be expected to be better
prepared to make decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny.
The bill that we have before us today is the product of extensive
oversight hearing that focused on proposals to improve patent
litigation, which was conducted by the Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property in October of 2005. This litigation
is similar to H.R. 34 from the 110th Congress and H.R. 5418, a bill
that passed the House unanimously during the 109th Congress. More
recently, the House passed H.R. 628 on March 17, 2009. The other body
passed the legislation with amendments on December 13. The new changes
improve the measure by eliminating a $10 million authorization and by
expanding the bill's application to smaller judicial districts.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 628 requires the director of the Administrative
Office of the Courts to select at least six district
[[Page 22402]]
courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program that begins no later
than 6 months after the date of enactment. The bill specifies criteria
the director must employ in determining eligible district courts. It
also contains provisions to preserve the random assignment of cases and
to prevent the selected districts from becoming magnets for forum-
shopping litigants and lawyers.
The litigation additionally requires the director in consultation
with the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the chief judge of
each participating district to provide the committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress
reports. These reports will enable the Congress and the courts to
evaluate whether the pilot program is working and, if so, whether it
should be made permanent.
Mr. Speaker, the bill does not substantially amend the patent laws or
the judicial process, nor does it serve as a substitute for
comprehensive patent reform that is needed. Rather, H.R. 628 constructs
a foundation that future Congresses and the courts may use to assess
the merits of future related proposals.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend
the superb job that the bill's sponsors, Representatives Issa and
Schiff, did in seeking out and incorporating the advice of numerous
experts as they developed this bipartisan important legislation. Their
success and cooperation have resulted in a good bill that deserves the
support of Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I urge
Members to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 628, and I want to
begin by acknowledging the leadership of my colleague Darrell Issa from
California in developing this bill. I joined with Mr. Issa to introduce
this important legislation back in the 109th Congress. It has not been
a short road to get here today to hopefully enact this bill, but we
would not have made it without his leadership.
I partnered with Mr. Issa on the bill because we share a deep
interest in improving the efficiency of the patent process, in reducing
litigation costs and inefficiencies in patent review, and also in
improving the quality of patents. This bill, in part, grew from a
hearing in the 109th Congress on improving Federal court adjudication
of patent cases in response to high rates of reversal. At this hearing,
a number of proposed options to address this issue were discussed.
Serious concerns were expressed about a number of proposals, including
those that would create new specialized courts and those that would
move all patent cases to existing specialized courts. These concerns
centered around the need to maintain generalist judges, to preserve
random case assignment, and to continue fostering the important legal
percolation that currently occurs among the various district courts.
Our proposal aims to avoid these pitfalls.
H.R. 628 establishes a mechanism to steer patent cases to judges that
have the desire and the aptitude to hear such cases while preserving
the principle of random assignment in order to prevent forum shopping
among the pilot districts. The legislation will also provide the
Congress and the courts with the opportunity to assess the program on a
periodic basis. Reports will examine whether the program succeeds in
developing greater expertise among participating district judges, the
extent to which the program contributes to improving judicial
efficiency in deciding these cases, and whether the program should be
extended, expanded, or made permanent. By providing our courts with the
resources they need to carefully consider patent cases, we will
ultimately save the taxpayer money.
While this legislation is an important step at addressing needed
patent reforms, I believe that Congress must continue to work on a more
comprehensive reform of our patent system, and I look forward to
continuing my work with my colleagues in order to address these issues.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he wishes to
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is a sponsor
of this bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's been 8 years since this bill began being
kicked around as a pilot. Some people would be less happy to announce
it than I, but I would like to find them. Eight years ago when I began
the dialogue with my colleagues, then the subcommittee ranking member,
Mr. Berman, said, Tell me more about this problem. And I told him from
life experience of the problem of these very talented judges,
magistrates, and Federal judges who wanted to do a good job on patents,
but it was almost always their first patent, and they lacked a support
system to make it happen in both large and small districts. I told them
how the southern district of San Diego had found ways to try to improve
the system, gleaning some additional expertise from one or two judges
who preferred these cases over some others and who actually sought them
out. I also told some of my fellow colleagues about the horror stories
of a magistrate ascending to the bench, finding that what he got from
each of the other members were all their patent cases, and suddenly he
had a backlog of these, had to find out what a Markman hearing was, had
to start getting into technical issues, one on electronics, another on
biotech, another one on telecommunications.
So over the years, we have all been educated well beyond that initial
anecdotal example. Then Orrin Hatch, Chairman Hatch, was supportive.
Now Chairman Leahy is supportive. All along the way, my classmate Adam
Schiff has been supportive, along with both chairman, and ranking
member at times, Howard Berman. Chairman Conyers has continued to be
supportive and has helped me, along with Ranking Member Lamar Smith,
vote this out early on in this Congress.
{time} 1310
But I have a special thanks for Chairman Leahy who made sure this
bill was pulled out of the comprehensive patent reform bill because its
time truly had come to begin saying to judges throughout the country
that, in fact, we were going to help them help themselves be better at
this. Although it's called patent pilot, over the years it has been
expanded to the number of jurisdictions that it could be used in to
where it's become quite clear that this will be a challenge to be
expanded countrywide in whatever format the study shows is best.
I find that this Congress, in its lame duck session, has done a few
good things. No surprise that this is one that I think is particularly
good, particularly good because, as Congressman Schiff just said, we
are, in fact, dealing in the lame duck session with a problem that has
been pervasive since before Congressman Schiff and I became Members of
this body 10 full years ago.
So as I thank each of you for your passage of this bill, and with
full confidence that this will become a broader consensus throughout
the Federal system, I also join with my friend and colleague Adam
Schiff in saying that the next Congress, in the early days, we must
truly dedicate ourselves to comprehensive patent reform, to take each
of the major issues that have been difficult and have, Congress after
Congress, failed to become law, and find ways to resolve some or all of
them for the good of the American people who find themselves spending
2, 3 or 8 or $10 million on what can often be a frivolous suit.
Again, Mr. Poe, I thank you for yielding me the time. I ask all my
colleagues to vote for this small but important change in patent law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 628, a bill to establish
a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage
enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.
Congressman Adam Schiff and I have worked together on this legislation
since the last Congress, and I am grateful for the chance to move this
legislation forward today.
The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized, and it is
not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party over $10,000,000.
Appeals from district courts to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit are frequent. This
[[Page 22403]]
is caused, in part, by the general perception within the patent
community that most district court judges are not sufficiently prepared
to hear patent cases. I drafted this legislation in an attempt to
decrease the cost of litigation by increasing the success of district
court judges.
H.R. 628 establishes a pilot project within at least six district
courts. Under the pilot, judges decide whether or not to opt into
hearing patent cases. If a judge opts in, and a patent case is randomly
assigned to that judge, that judge keeps the case. If a case is
randomly assigned to a judge who has not opted into hearing patent
cases, that judge has the choice of keeping that case or sending it to
the group of judges who have opted in. To be a designated court, the
court must have at least 10 authorized judges with at least 3 opting
in, or certify that they have adopted local rules for patent and plant
variety protection cases.
The core intent of this pilot is to steer patent cases to judges that
have the desire and aptitude to hear patent cases, while preserving
random assignment as much as possible. The pilot will last no longer
than 10 years, and periodic studies will occur to determine the pilot
project's success.
I am happy to say that H.R. 628 is supported by software, hardware,
tech and electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, biotech
companies, district court judges, the American Intellectual Property
Law Association, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association among
others.
This legislation is a good first step toward improving the legal
environment for the patent community in the United States. H.R. 628
should not, however, be taken as a replacement for broader patent
reform. We still need to address substantive issues within patent law,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that broader effort
as well.
I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member
Lamar Smith, as well Senators Hatch and Leahy. I also thank my staff
and the committee staff who worked so hard to make this possible.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 628.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, patent law is complicated. It is difficult. It is messy.
Now, that's why law schools have a special track for those that want to
be patent lawyers. They get their own certification, in many law
schools, because it is so complicated. And then when those cases go to
court, they need to be presented to a judge that has a lot of
experience in patent law. It is a difficult, complex legal issue in
almost every case. And those cases take, sometimes, years before they
are resolved in court, then on appeal, and the reversal rate is
extremely high.
This legislation, hopefully, corrects that problem in giving those
district judges that want to hear these cases that special expertise in
hearing a great number of these cases, becoming experts and
understanding the law, the complexities of the law and, hopefully,
getting a better and quicker result in the courtrooms of the United
States. I support this legislation.
I want to commend, once again, the two representatives from
California, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Issa, for their long endurance over
sponsoring this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
628.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
PRESERVING FOREIGN CRIMINAL ASSETS FOR FORFEITURE ACT OF 2010
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(S. 4005) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the
proceeds or instrumentalities of foreign crime located in the United
States from being shielded from foreign forfeiture proceedings.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 4005
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 ``Preserving Foreign Criminal
Assets for Forfeiture Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UNDER
FOREIGN LAW.
Section 2467(d)(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) Restraining orders.--
``(i) In general.--To preserve the availability of property
subject to civil or criminal forfeiture under foreign law,
the Government may apply for, and the court may issue, a
restraining order at any time before or after the initiation
of forfeiture proceedings by a foreign nation.
``(ii) Procedures.--
``(I) In general.--A restraining order under this
subparagraph shall be issued in a manner consistent with
subparagraphs (A), (C), and (E) of paragraph (1) and the
procedural due process protections for a restraining order
under section 983(j) of title 18.
``(II) Application.--For purposes of applying such section
983(j)--
``(aa) references in such section 983(j) to civil
forfeiture or the filing of a complaint shall be deemed to
refer to the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture
proceedings; and
``(bb) the reference in paragraph (1)(B)(i) of such section
983(j) to the United States shall be deemed to refer to the
foreign nation.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for Forfeiture
Act of 2010 will ensure that U.S. courts can freeze assets while
foreign legal proceedings are pending. This fix permits Federal law
enforcement to assist foreign governments without waiting for a final
judgment in a foreign court.
I want to tell you a story that highlights the importance of this
legislation. Years ago, I met a bright young man named Bobby Salcedo,
who grew up in my district it in El Monte, California. What struck me
right away was Bobby's dedication to improving the lives of children
and residents of his community. It was that dedication that gave him
his incredible energy and passion to achieve as much as he did.
He was an elected member of the El Monte School District. He returned
to his alma mater, Mountain View High School, to become its assistant
principal, and was studying for his doctorate in education at UCLA.
Aside from his caring, selfless nature, Bobby was very intelligent,
driven, and charismatic. It was clear to everyone who knew him that he
was going somewhere. He was our rising star.
A year ago, Bobby traveled to Gomez Palacio in the Mexican state of
Durango to visit his wife's family for the holidays. On New Year's Eve,
he was out with family and friends at a local restaurant when gunmen
burst in and dragged Bobby, along with five other men, out of the
restaurant at gunpoint. They were then each shot to death execution-
style. The next day, all six bodies were found dumped in a ditch. Bobby
was only 33 years old.
After the investigation began, it was confirmed that none of the six
murder victims were connected to the drug
[[Page 22404]]
trade in any way. Bobby and the others were in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Their deaths exemplify a growing number of innocent
bystanders who are becoming victimized in the cartel violence in
Mexico.
It had seemed as though the situation could not get worse. However,
only weeks after Bobby was so brutally murdered, the lead state
investigator in his case was also shot dead.
For me and thousands of others, Bobby's death is a symbol for both of
our countries that progress for peace in Mexico must be made. We cannot
allow the death of innocent bystanders or American citizens to pass
without consequences. Until there is true accountability for the
violence, there is little incentive for the drug lords to keep the
peace.
In my conversations with law enforcement, I hear the same thing over
and over again. In order to stop this wave of violence on the border
and protect both American and Mexican citizens, we must hit the cartels
where it hurts the most--their bank accounts and property, which are
often located in the United States. So when I heard that Federal courts
had severely limited law enforcement's ability to freeze foreign assets
in the United States at the request of foreign governments, I had to
act.
In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of
2000, which authorized Federal courts to assist foreign nations by
freezing assets located in the United States while individuals stood
trial in foreign courts. This process is consistent with our treaty
obligations and, under those same international agreements, foreign
courts will offer the United States similar assistance with assets
located overseas.
This law is an important tool to fight organized crime, money
laundering, and drug trafficking. It allows the U.S. to assist foreign
governments in cutting the money supply to international criminal
organizations.
Earlier this year, however, Federal courts interpreted the statute to
apply only after a final decision has been reached in a foreign court
proceeding. After the decision, law enforcement had no way to prevent
illicit property from being moved out of our grasp before it was too
late.
In the past few months, our government has been unable to protect
more than $550 million that had been identified for forfeiture by
foreign governments. This money will remain a continuing resource for
criminal organizations, allowing them to fund extensive additional
criminal activity.
The bill we are considering today includes due process protections
similar to those used for restraining orders in anticipation of
domestic forfeiture judgments. It also requires the courts to verify
that the relevant foreign tribunal observes due process protections,
has subject matter jurisdiction, and is not acting as a result of
fraud.
This is just one small step to ensure that international criminal
organizations like the cartels that murdered Bobby Salcedo have fewer
resources to evade prosecution. It is for Bobby, his family, and the
thousands of others who have been affected by cartel violence around
the world that I fought to pass this important legislation.
{time} 1320
I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing this
bill to come to the floor so quickly, and I want to recognize the
steadfast bipartisan support of my friend, Judge Ted Poe, and our
colleagues in the Senate, Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn.
This bill has the support of the Department of Justice, which is
eager to use this tool to protect our borders and make the world a
safer place. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 4005, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for
Forfeiture Act of 2010, makes a simple, yet very important, technical
change to Federal law to facilitate asset preservation for foreign
countries. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I
commend my colleague from California (Ms. Chu) in sponsoring this House
companion to S. 4005. I would like to thank her for her work on this
issue in bringing it before Congress.
Federal law currently provides procedures by which the Federal
Government can seek a court order to preserve or freeze certain
domestic assets on behalf of a foreign government. This is an important
tool to take out of the hands of criminals the proceeds that fund their
illegal operations.
Criminals will go to great lengths to stash their ill-gotten profits.
And whether it is an international drug cartel, a terrorist group,
organized crime syndicate, or simply a savvy computer hacker or corrupt
corporation, the key to putting a stop to their crimes is to put a
stranglehold on their money that they have illegally obtained. But a
recent D.C. circuit court of appeals decision limits the ability of the
United States to assist foreign governments in retaining and
restraining those assets.
The court interpreted section 2464 of title 28, governing the entry
of foreign judgments, to authorize a U.S. court to freeze assets only
after the foreign court's final forfeiture judgment. This is a
significant limitation on our ability to assist in foreign forfeiture
proceedings. If forced to await until a final foreign judgment is
entered, we run the risk of allowing thousands, if not millions, of
dollars to slip through our hands into the hands of the criminals.
In many countries, like Mexico, their judiciaries operate at a much
slower pace than ours, and their prosecution rates are much lower. In
fact, the criminal conviction rate in Mexico is less than 10 percent.
Therefore, a lot of times, by the time a forfeiture judgment is made,
the target has already moved their assets someplace else. This hampers
our ability to go after Mexican cartel members who have assets here in
the United States. So unless Congress clarifies the scope of section
2467, we run the risk of losing cooperation from foreign governments in
our request to seize assets that are held abroad.
The investigation into the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme
undertaken by Allen Stanford demonstrates our need for foreign
countries to continue to freeze assets on our behalf. To date,
Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom have restrained a combined
$400 million on behalf of the United States in just the Stanford case.
This is money that certainly could have been lost if the United States
was prevented from requesting such assistance from our allies until a
final judgment was made.
The court of appeals was correct that it is not a court's role to
substitute its view or policy for the legislation which has been passed
by Congress. So I don't argue with the court's decision; but it is
Congress' obligation to change and fix the law so that this does not
occur in the future. With adoption of this legislation, Congress is
establishing a clear and simple policy on the restraint of foreign
assets.
So I commend my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn, and of
course the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), for their efforts to
clarify this statute. We must ensure that foreign governments can
continue to rely on our assistance with their criminal prosecutions and
the United States will continue to receive the same cooperation from
our foreign allies.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield such time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Preserving Criminal
Assets for Forfeiture Act, and I want to commend my colleagues, both
Ms. Chu and Judge Poe, for bringing this forward.
As he talked about, we've got a problem right now where a court case
has allowed a loophole, a major loophole, where criminal organizations
are able to shield their assets from our Justice Department. We do not
want, and we cannot allow, for these foreign criminal organizations,
whether it is drug cartels, money launderers, or others, to be able to
shield those assets from the law, not only removing the accountability,
but allowing them to keep
[[Page 22405]]
those assets that they may use against our law enforcement here in the
United States. It is critical that we get this passed quickly to close
this loophole and prevent those types of shielding from the law as it
is currently happening.
I also want to point out something else that my colleague from Texas
talked about. In the Stanford case, this is a case where somebody
created a Ponzi scheme that affected lots of people in my State, in
Texas, and other States. We cannot allow these kinds of people to be
able to shield their assets from justice. Ultimately, they need to have
their day in court, and they need to have to face justice for the
things that they did to our American citizens here.
I strongly support this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to
do so as well.
Ms. CHU. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the forfeiture concept is very important to the helping
of our law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. It is the
concept that criminals, drug cartels make a lot of money off the crimes
they commit; and that money, when confiscated, should be not given back
to the perpetrator, of course. It should be used for law enforcement
and other worthwhile endeavors.
Under current law, this problem is an extreme problem because of the
fact that many times, by the time the criminal cartel has been captured
and they go to trial, they have hidden their assets and then there is
no money to go back into the forfeiture.
So this legislation prevents this problem from occurring in the
future. It allows the seizure of those assets where they can be used
for law enforcement. It makes criminals pay the rent on the courthouse
and pay for the system that they have created, and it helps in the
forfeiture.
I cannot overemphasize how important forfeiture of illegal, ill-
gotten gain is to our law enforcement agencies. Just one example of
this: down on the Texas border where our sheriffs are operating on the
border, we have got one county. The sheriff in Hudspeth County doesn't
even have a budget for the motor pool; in other words, he has no
vehicles that are funded at taxpayer expense. So the only way he gets
vehicles is capturing drug cartels and drug runners when they come into
Hudspeth County and forfeiting their vehicles to law enforcement. That
is why they have a nice set of Escalades that they use in the fight on
the drug cartel.
So forfeiture, whether it is vehicles or whether it is money, is
extremely important to law enforcement; and we must continue to help
them where we can and make the criminals pay for the system they have
created and pay the rent on the courthouse.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 4005.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1330
GYNECOLOGIC CANCER EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ACT
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2941) to reauthorize and enhance
Johanna's Law to increase public awareness and knowledge with respect
to gynecologic cancers.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF JOHANNA'S LAW.
(a) In General.--Section 317P(d) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-17(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``2009'' the
following: ``and $18,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2014''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6).
(b) Consultation With Nonprofit Gynecologic Cancer
Organizations.--Section 317P(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-
17(d)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended by
inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Consultation with nonprofit gynecologic cancer
organizations.--In carrying out the national campaign under
this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with nonprofit
gynecologic cancer organizations, with a mission both to
conquer ovarian or other gynecologic cancer and to provide
outreach to State and local governments and communities, for
the purpose of determining the best practices for providing
gynecologic cancer information and outreach services to
varied populations.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2941, a bill to
reauthorize Johanna's Law. I would also like to acknowledge the hard
work of the bill's sponsor, Representative DeLauro, on this
legislation. She has been a tireless supporter of this program and a
staunch advocate for this reauthorization.
The bill reauthorizes an existing CDC program to educate women and
health care providers about the detection and treatment of
gynecological cancers. Gynecological cancers are diagnosed in over
80,000 American women annually and they kill nearly 28,000. The program
educates women so that they can recognize the warning signs of
gynecological cancers, because when such cancers are found early,
treatment is most effective. The program also connects women to patient
support services and key national organizations which are fighting
gynecological cancers.
I know that many of my colleagues here today are cosponsors of the
bill, and I urge you all in joining me in supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in favor of H.R. 2941, otherwise known as
Johanna's Law reauthorization. It would reauthorize Johanna's Law,
which was first passed by Congress at the end of the 2006 session and
directed the Health and Human Services Department to carry out a
national campaign to increase awareness of gynecological cancer.
In 2006, 76,515 women were told that they had gynecological cancer
and 27,848 died from that cancer. H.R. 2941 would authorize the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to continue the nationwide campaign
which is entitled ``Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic
Cancer.'' The campaign is designed to increase the awareness and
knowledge of health care providers and women with respect to
gynecological cancers.
Cancer screenings are effective when they can detect the disease
early. It is widely known that the earlier the disease is caught, the
greater chance a person has to survive it. However, in the group of
gynecological cancers, only cervical cancer has a screening test that
can detect the cancer in its earliest stages. It is therefore important
that both individual women and their physicians remain aware of the
disease and recognize signals that could lead to an earlier detection
of the disease. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support
Johanna's Law.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
[[Page 22406]]
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Ovarian cancer, if it is caught early, has a 93-percent chance for 5-
year survival for women with this terrible cancer, and if they don't
catch it early, only 27 percent of the ladies that get it have a chance
of survival.
This bill was named after Johanna Silver Gordon, who went to the
doctor regularly for her physical. Her doctor missed the ovarian cancer
that she had, and, like many women, because the doctor either
misdiagnosed or missed it, she passed away, I believe in December of
2006.
This was brought to my attention by a very good friend, Ms. Kolleen
Stacy, in Indiana, who had gynecological cancer. She fought it for many
years and she was a champion of Johanna's Law, and she brought to the
attention of many people, including myself, the problems that women
have by not knowing the signs of gynecological cancer problems, in
particular ovarian cancer.
It is extremely important that this be caught early. For that reason,
that is why this law is so important, because it gives women the
opportunity to find out about the problems they may face early so that
their survival rate can be increased.
I want to thank Darrell Issa, as well as our Democrat colleague who
sponsored this bill, for bringing this to the floor a couple of years
ago. I am very happy it is being reauthorized today.
What Johanna's Law does is it provides a cancer-specific fact sheet
about gynecological cancers in both English and Spanish. It provides a
comprehensive gynecological cancer brochure. It provides formative
research and concept testing using focus groups to better understand
the target audience.
It provides materials for primary care and health care professionals.
And that is extremely important, because many physicians don't catch
it. It is not because they don't want to; it is because the signs have
not been very clearly defined and they haven't seen it. And it is
extremely important that these materials for primary care and health
care professionals be provided.
It provides print and broadcast public service announcements for
women so that they can see on television maybe some of the symptoms
that they have that might be leading to a gynecological-type cancer.
It also provides that all materials that have been created through
Johanna's Law be sent to television, radio, and printout lists
throughout the country. The CDC is tracking and airing the PSAs and
audience impressions, and the CDC is also reaching out to groups
encouraging the use of these materials.
As my colleague has stated, a lot of women have lost their lives or
had their lives shortened because they didn't know the symptoms of
gynecological cancer or ovarian cancer early enough.
This is a very important piece of legislation. I know that there are
not a lot of people here speaking about it today, but women across the
country who have suffered from various forms of cancer understand the
import of legislation like this.
I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate and my colleagues
here in the House for bringing this legislation to the floor. Once
again, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of it, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to yield to the bill's
author, our colleague from Connecticut, Representative DeLauro, but
then her schedule precluded her from attending this hearing. So I am
going to read her statement into the Record on her behalf.
Every hour, approximately 10 women in the United States are diagnosed
with a gynecologic cancer such as ovarian, cervical, and uterine
cancers. Each year, we lose over 26,000 of our mothers, our sisters,
our daughters, and our friends to one of these terrible cancers. This
is a tragedy.
Research shows that many of those deaths could be prevented if more
women knew the risk factors and recognized the early symptoms of
gynecologic cancers so that they could discuss them with their doctors.
Some cancers have a dramatic difference in likely survival when they
are diagnosed early. Ovarian cancer, as my colleague just referred to,
for example, has just about a threefold difference in survivability
between the early time it can be diagnosed and the later time it is
often diagnosed.
In 2007, Johanna's Law, the Gynecologic Cancer Education and
Awareness Act, was enacted.
{time} 1340
This important legislation created a gynecologic cancer education and
awareness campaign which is administered by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, CDC, to raise awareness of the five main types
of gynecologic cancer: cervical, ovarian, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar.
Johanna's Law was originally authorized for 3 years, and H.R. 2941
reauthorizes the program for another 3 years. This bill reauthorizes a
national awareness and education program to ensure that those diagnoses
are made as early as possible so that women can have a higher chance of
survival and authorizes, in addition, funding of $18 million over the
3-year period. The bill has more than 150 bipartisan cosponsors in the
House. It was passed by unanimous voice vote in late September, and the
Senate passed revised language on December 10. It is important that we
reauthorize Johanna's Law in this Congress to continue building upon
the CDC's efforts to educate women and their health care providers.
In conclusion, our colleague Ms. DeLauro wants to thank Congressman
Darrell Issa; Dan Burton, our colleague who has just spoken; and Sandy
Levin for their committed leadership on this issue.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an important
bill that enjoys strong and consistent bipartisan support--the
reauthorization of Johanna's Law through 2014. This is an important
vote. It will help to raise awareness of the warning signs of ovarian
cancer.
Better awareness is one of the most critical tools we have. Research
shows that many deaths from these diseases could be prevented if more
women and health care providers knew the risk factors, and recognized
the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers.
Better awareness might have helped Johanna Silver Gordon--in whose
honor the bill is named. Johanna lost her life to ovarian cancer
despite being a health-conscious woman who visited the gynecologist
regularly. Like many women, Johanna had symptoms and clinical signs of
ovarian cancer that were missed by both her and her healthcare
provider. And her sister, Sheryl Silver, was determined never to let
another sister, mother, daughter or friend go through the same thing.
This bill is a big step in that fight. It reauthorizes the existing
CDC program that educates women and their health care providers about
the symptoms of ovarian and other gynecological cancers. Put simply, it
will save lives.
I want to thank Congressmen Darrell Issa, Dan Burton, and Sandy Levin
for their committed leadership on this issue. And I urge my colleagues
to vote for this legislation today. As Johanna's family can tell you,
it really will make a difference.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the passage of H.R. 2941, to
renew ``Johanna's Law'' to increase public awareness and knowledge of
gynecological cancers. I am pleased to have introduced this important
bill with Representatives DeLauro, Issa, and Burton. Johanna's Law
established a national public information campaign to educate women and
health care providers about the risk factors and early warning signs of
gynecologic cancers. This bill before the House carries on that
important life-saving work by extending funding of Johanna's Law from
2012 to 2014.
The law was named after Michigan resident Johanna Silver Gordon, a
loving mother and dedicated public school teacher, who, despite
visiting her doctor regularly, was blindsided by a diagnosis of late-
stage ovarian cancer, learning only after her diagnosis that the
symptoms she had been experiencing were common symptoms of that
disease. Despite the best efforts of her physicians, tragically,
Johanna lost her life to ovarian cancer 3\1/2\ years after being
diagnosed.
Johanna's story is far too common. Although it has been 10 years
since she died of ovarian cancer, and 4 years since Congress first
passed this important legislation, each
[[Page 22407]]
year over 71,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with a gynecologic
cancer and over 26,000 women are lost to one of these serious cancers.
Many of those deaths could be prevented if more women knew and
recognized the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers and received
prompt treatment.
Today we continue to build on the work we began with the passage of
the first Johanna's Law 4 years ago. Our best weapon against
gynecological cancers is early detection. A woman's chance of survival
is dramatically improved when the gynecological cancer is diagnosed
early. Ovarian cancer causes more deaths in women than any other
gynecological cancer; however, it has a 93 percent survival rate if
detected in Stage One, but only a 20 percent survival rate if detected
in Stage Three or Four.
Right now, awareness, education, early diagnosis, and treatment are
the most effective weapons we have in our war against gynecological
cancers. I urge my colleagues to support Johanna's Law so we can
prevail in our battle against these terrible cancers that cut short the
lives of our mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, partners and friends.
I urge passage of this very important legislation.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) that the House suspend the
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2941.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
S. 841; by the yeas and nays;
S. 3860; by the yeas and nays;
S. 3447, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 841) to direct the
Secretary of Transportation to study and establish a motor vehicle
safety standard that provides for a means of alerting blind and other
pedestrians of motor vehicle operation, 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 Georgia (Mr. Barrow) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 379,
nays 30, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 640]
YEAS--379
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--30
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Graves (GA)
Hensarling
Hunter
Kingston
Lamborn
Linder
Lummis
Mack
McClintock
Miller (FL)
Nunes
Paul
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Reed
Shadegg
Shuster
Stutzman
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--24
Baird
Berry
Blunt
Boehner
Brown (SC)
Cardoza
Davis (AL)
Granger
Himes
Hoekstra
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Marchant
Markey (CO)
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Peters
Platts
Radanovich
Reyes
Shuler
Simpson
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 1411
Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, SHUSTER, KINGSTON, CHAFFETZ,
LAMBORN, STUTZMAN, MACK, BARRETT of South Carolina, COFFMAN of
Colorado, SHADEGG, POE of Texas and AKIN changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. BACHMANN and Mr. EHLERS changed their 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.
[[Page 22408]]
____________________
REQUIRING REPORTS ON MANAGEMENT OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). The unfinished
business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 3860) to require reports on the management of Arlington
National Cemetery, 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.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 3, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 641]
YEAS--407
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--3
Poe (TX)
Tiahrt
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--23
Baird
Berry
Blunt
Brown (SC)
Cardoza
Clyburn
Davis (AL)
Farr
Granger
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Pence
Platts
Radanovich
Schock
Simpson
Wamp
Watson
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1422
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.
____________________
POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3447) to amend title
38, United States Code, to improve educational assistance for veterans
who served in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, and for other
purposes, 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.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409,
nays 3, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 642]
YEAS--409
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
[[Page 22409]]
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--3
Buyer
Flake
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--22
Baird
Berry
Boehner
Brown (SC)
Cardoza
Clyburn
Davis (AL)
Granger
Hoekstra
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Moore (WI)
Pence
Platts
Radanovich
Simpson
Wamp
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1429
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.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). Pursuant to clause 12(a) of
rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of
the Chair.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 1745
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire) at 5 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 15, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: This is to notify you formally,
pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, that I, in my capacity as Custodian of
Records for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
have been served with a subpoena for documents issued by a
grand jury in New York County, New York.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Strodel.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1766
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to debate in the House the topics addressed
by the motions specified in sections 2 and 3 of this
resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means or their designees.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
final adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 3. If the motion described in section 2 of this
resolution fails of adoption, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on a motion that the House concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment, on which the Chair shall immediately put the
question.
Sec. 4. Until completion of proceedings enabled by the
first three sections of this resolution--
(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
motion, resolution, question, or notice;
(b) the Chair may postpone such proceedings to such time as
may be designated by the Speaker; and
(c) each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this
resolution shall be considered as read.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that cell
phone use in the House Chamber is not permitted.
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1766.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
[[Page 22410]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, since I made a rather lengthy speech at
our first rule this morning, I am going to be giving up my time to
other Members.
So I will at this point reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Rochester for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I
might consume.
I think it is very important for us to understand exactly what is
taking place here.
About 5 minutes ago I was downstairs and told to appear on the House
floor. I am here. I know that there has been a Democratic Caucus held
to deal with the changes. I know that lots of people have been
following what has transpired over the past few hours, and I think that
before we proceed, it would be best for the distinguished chair of the
Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, to explain to us sort of what's
happened and what we're doing and what specific changes Members can
anticipate in this rule.
I would be happy to yield to my friend from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you for yielding.
There are very few changes, if any. The caucus in the Democratic
Party is really the most important part of our side of the House. The
Speaker is meticulous about working with them to achieve consensus.
Frankly, we had a rather raucous meeting this morning at the caucus and
it was decided that it would be better if we recessed and took some
time to see where we were and to make sure that all facets of the
caucus had been listened to. But as I said, there will probably be very
little change, if any, from the rule we had this morning.
Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, there may
be very little change, but it is my understanding, just from the brief
staff report that I got, that we are going to, under this rule,
continue to have a vote on the Pomeroy amendment, which increases the
death tax. And following that, because of a concern that was raised by
Members on the majority side of the aisle, there was concern that there
wouldn't be a final passage vote. So am I correct to infer that we can
anticipate the only change being a final passage vote on the measure?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The gentleman is correct. There were many Members who
felt that they needed that extra vote. At the proper time we will make
the decision as to whether we will call and ask for a change in the
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time again, I am trying to get
a clear understanding so that Members of this body will know what the
proposed changes are in this rule that is before us that we are
debating now. I think that, again, looking back to what we've gone
through over the last several years, transparency, disclosure,
accountability, those are the guides that we're trying to use. And so
before we proceed, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it's very important to
have a clear understanding of exactly what it is that we are
considering, and so I would ask the chair if she would explain that to
the membership.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1800
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to respond to the gentleman.
The only thing I can tell you, Mr. Dreier, as I said before, is that
there is no change in this bill. We may or may not ask for an ability
to have a separate vote, as you pointed out, so that people will have
an up-or-down vote on the bill.
As you know, we are dealing with the resolution, and if the Pomeroy
portion of it should go down, then we wouldn't normally have that up-
or-down vote. If it should pass, that would normally be the end of our
proceedings, and it would go directly to the Senate. We are simply
adding, as a precaution and for a number of Members who have requested
it, an ability to have that up-or-down vote regardless of whether the
amendment passes or fails.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I am very appreciative of my friend for yielding.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, explain it the way I've understood.
So the rule is identical to the rule that we were debating earlier,
that being we are anticipating 3 hours of general debate; we are
expecting that there will be a vote then on the proposal by Mr. Pomeroy
to increase the death tax. Then, Mr. Speaker, we may or may not,
following that, have a vote on final passage before the measure is sent
to the Senate; and from there, it would then go on to the President.
Is that a correct explanation?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is correct.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate my friend
for having explained it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chairperson, thank you so very, very much for
your leadership and for the change in the rule.
Mr. Speaker, the earlier rule presented a significant problem to us
in that it had basically a vote on the Pomeroy amendment; and that
would be then, if that passed, the vote on the bill without a separate
vote. Separation is very, very important to many of us because we see
in this particular piece of legislation numerous serious problems.
For example, we see that the Social Security payroll tax is being
reduced, which, for the first time ever in history, I think, has put
Social Security's security in play. In the future, we think this may be
a very, very serious detriment to the well-being of the Social Security
system.
In addition to that, the way in which the taxes are structured, I
think, goes basically against some very fundamental principles that
were best announced and laid out by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Etched
on the marble at his memorial here in Washington, D.C., are the words
that speak, I believe, very directly to this piece of legislation. He
said that the test of our progress is not whether those who have much
get more but, rather, whether those who have little get enough.
This piece of legislation that we will be voting on, even with the
proposed amendment, the Pomeroy amendment, really does give those who
have much even more while those who have little get very, very little.
We strongly support the middle class tax cut. That has always been
our position. We think President Obama was quite correct in announcing
his support for the middle class tax cut. We think that the Republican
position of even greater wealth and lower taxes for those who have
much--not just a little much but a great, great deal of the wealth of
America--is not justified. Therefore, we stand in support of the
proposed rule, and we will speak later on the bill.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join my
colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi) in supporting the rule and
also in expressing my opposition to this bill.
A number of Members of Congress will come and express their
opposition to the bill in the debate, and I wanted to use some of the
time during the rule to set the climate for what many Members of this
body will be hearing. I want to start with a couple of quotes that, I
think, ought to drive some of the discussion that will be taking place
here on the floor.
The first is from The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Adam Smith: ``The
subjects of every State ought to contribute toward the support of the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. As Henry Home
(Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to `remedy
inequality of riches as much as possible by relieving the poor and
burdening the rich.'''
William Jennings Bryan, at the Democratic National Convention, on
[[Page 22411]]
July 8, 1896, said, ``I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a
man''--or a woman--``who is not willing to bear his share of the
burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is
unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.''
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in Worcester, Massachusetts, on October
21, 1936, said, ``Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the
privileges of membership in an organized society.''
There will be great debate on the floor of this Congress tonight
about extending the Bush-era tax cuts. The Bush-era tax cuts, which are
an extension of the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, represent one of the
most profound shifts of wealth in our Nation from those most vulnerable
to those who are well-heeled--those who are better positioned in our
society to make their way through life.
So it is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that this debate be conducted in a
way that allows for people to participate.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, as amended, that will
give an opportunity to both sides to address what, I think, is an
egregious provision in this bill. It, unfortunately, I think, also
mirrors another provision in this bill, which is the tax cuts to the
wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this country and to a handful of
estates, to some 6,000 estates. It gives them a $25 billion tax cut at
a time when working families are struggling to keep their families
together.
Also is the fact that it does nothing in terms of stimulus, in terms
of job creation. These tax cuts to the wealthy, so many economists have
said, is the least stimulative thing you can do. They simply don't
spend the money in a timely fashion because they don't need to spend
that money. The second one, of course, is that the estate tax provides
no stimulative impact either to the economy. In talking about doing
this for the sake of the economy, what we are really doing is cutting
taxes to people and to estates that will not contribute to economic
growth, so we are creating debt that is unnecessary to create.
You know, we are a couple of weeks away from the debt commission. We
are a couple of months away from when people were concerned whether the
United States was going to look like Greece or Spain or Portugal. Along
we come now, and we're not even prepared to make the distinction as to
whether or not we would create debt for, hopefully, stimulative
purposes and/or just hand out tax breaks to people who don't need them
and who won't contribute to the improvement of the economy. Yet it will
clearly be put on the debt of this Nation, and it will clearly have to
be dealt with in the ensuing Congresses where it will drive a series of
decisions that aren't necessary, but neither was the debt necessary.
I do think this rule is an improvement because it will give the
opportunity for those individuals who want to vote against this tax cut
for this limited number of estates to do so. Then whether they vote for
that or against that or whether that prevails or doesn't prevail, the
individuals will still have the ability to vote against this
legislation as this is not to suggest that the amendment addresses all
that is wrong with this legislation.
{time} 1810
It doesn't address the tax cuts for the high income. It doesn't
address the complications of the payroll holiday and what that means to
the financing of Social Security over the long term, the ability of
this Congress to change that a year from now, the fact that that can
lead to tax increases for individuals, and that it's less progressive
than the higher provision that was in the original Recovery Act to
provide assistance to middle-income families.
There are a number of good provisions in this legislation. There are
tax provisions in here to help educate their children, to take care of
their children, and the extension of unemployment for a year, but I
would hope that we would support the rule. As inadequate as this
legislation is, I would hope that we would support the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this bill, however the rule comes
out, for several reasons. Number one, if this bill passes, we will
extend the upper income tax cuts at a cost of increase in the deficit
by $700 billion over 10 years.
We're told that in 2 years it will expire. Of course, we also know
that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it
in 2 years, and in 2 years, we'll have the same kind of coercion. We'll
be told that if we don't extend the upper end tax cuts, the middle
class tax cuts will also expire, and I don't see any reason to believe
that we wouldn't succumb to that coercion 2 years from now in an
election year as much as we're doing now in this bill.
So I believe that passing this bill, in effect, would make permanent
the upper end tax cuts which, in effect, would generate a $700 billion
increase in the deficit, which would make it almost impossible to fund
housing, education, everything else we need. It would be the
culmination of the 30-year Republican effort to starve the beast, to
deliberately create huge deficits in order to provide the political
cover for reducing expenditures in housing, education, Social Security,
and Medicare.
Secondly, I hope that Mr. Pomeroy's amendment on the estate tax will
pass, but if it doesn't, that's another problem.
Thirdly, Social Security. We are going, in this bill, to provide for
a 1-year tax reduction of 2 percent in the Social Security tax. That
will cost us $120 billion in 1 year, which will be replenished from the
general fund, but we know perfectly well that, politically, once you
make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it, which means it
will be $120 billion a year forever taken away from Social Security but
replaced by the general fund.
Now, the conservatives have always told us we have to reduce Social
Security, increase the retirement age, reduce benefits, because it
contributes to the deficit. We said, no, it doesn't contribute to the
deficit. Social Security is walled off; it has nothing to do with the
deficit. But now it will be put right in the middle of the deficit
debate, and it will cost the general fund $120 billion a year, $1.2
trillion over 10 years, and we'll be told you've got to reduce Social
Security benefits, increase the retirement age because of the deficit,
and it will be in the middle of the deficit debate. We will be told a
year or two or three from now, by the way, we'll only replace $100
billion of the $120 billion we have taken away from Social Security
this year because we need the money for education and housing and
something else, and we should not want to be in that position.
FDR decided in 1935 that Social Security would be supported by its
own tax, by its own situation of people paying into it year after year
so they take it back when they retired. Now we are going to take some
of that money away, and we're going to say the general fund will
support it. FDR knew that by setting up Social Security as self-
financing, it would be difficult to abolish or to reduce. This undoes
that genius by the New Deal and puts Social Security at great risk,
and, accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, assuming that my friend still has additional
speakers, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the
gentlewoman from New York.
As of this morning, I was not prepared, much to my disappointment, to
support this rule, but I do support the
[[Page 22412]]
rule now and the ability of this House to move forward on this tax cut
bill.
It is sad that later on we're going to consider a bill that isn't
just about an estate tax that benefits only 6,600 families. It's about
what we do with Social Security for the long term, protecting the
investment that all of our seniors, people who have invested in Social
Security should be able to expect in the years to come. It is about the
debt that's going to be saddled onto our children and our
grandchildren.
The underlying bill is so problematic in so many ways--and I'll have
an opportunity to speak on my opposition to that bill--but I do stand
here able to support a rule that allows me to take a vote as a
Democrat, to speak to the values that I hold for working people and for
working families and for our children and our grandchildren and their
future.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, America faces two great challenges: One, we have too few
jobs. Over 15 million Americans who are looking for work can't find it.
Even millions more are so discouraged, they don't even go out. Number
2, too much debt; approaching $14 trillion, in this bill would add $858
billion more.
Now, President Obama was right in proposing legislation, absolutely
right, legislation is needed to revive our economy. And President Obama
is right, he is absolutely right, that we should extend those middle
class tax cuts for folks up to $250,000. They need the money. We can't
shrink their paycheck, and that will help revive the economy.
But this legislation creates too few jobs and too much debt. The cost
per job is in the range of $390,000. The cost of this is largely
because of the success of the Senate Republicans to insist on $200
million both in estate tax reductions, in high-end tax reductions, that
will go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
This is not about class warfare. This is not about soak the rich.
This is about prudent use of taxpayer dollars. If we borrow a dollar,
there should be some job bang for that dollar borrowed, and those high-
end tax cuts and the estate tax cuts do not generate jobs, but they
will be a bill that comes due and must be paid by the middle class and
working families of this country.
We have a responsibility to focus on jobs, to focus on economic
revival, and to rebuild the middle class. We can do a better job. We
could have a bill that extended the Bush tax cuts up to $250,000, and
the money saved, put that into reducing the deficit and infrastructure
development. We could have a bill that focussed on an estate tax that
was less generous than what is being considered in this legislation,
and we could have a bill that would protect Social Security. Americans
know that we cannot take money out from the revenue stream and expect
to have solvency in the long term.
So we have a chance to pass the legislation to revive us
economically, to treat the middle class right, but to limit the debt.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
{time} 1820
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairlady for giving me
this opportunity.
I wasn't going to support the rule this morning, but I am going to
support it now. I am going to support it because I want to be able to
vote to make the estate tax more reasonable, even though the reality
is, what we are voting on is whether we are going to give the wealthy
with the estate tax a six-course meal with wine or a seven-course meal
with wine, and we should be talking about a meat and three.
The fact is, the estate tax with a $675,000 exemption was started
with the Bush tax cuts, and now we are putting it up to a $5 million
exemption per person and $10 million per couple. It was at a 55 percent
rate and precipitously drops in this bill to 35 percent. The benefit to
the heirs of the richest people in this country is unbelievable,
unfathomable. And what that means, you will have a continued
concentration of wealth in a few select families, lords so to speak,
princes that have money beyond what anybody needs to have in this
Nation and not contribute to others. The fact is, this was a very
difficult vote, a very difficult decision for me. I asked my
constituents to let me know what they thought. I had hundreds of people
call and write and contribute to a poll, and it was about even, for and
against.
The fact is, the future of our Nation is at risk. These tax cuts for
the most wealthy people in our Nation, for corporations that will not
produce jobs, in the hundreds of billions of dollars category, and the
inheritance tax will take away the children, the aged, and the needy in
years to come who will need support from this Nation. The deficit will
be so great that when it comes time for deficit cutting, the cuts are
going to come to the people who most are in need.
Hubert Humphrey said, ``The moral test of government is how it treats
those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the
twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick,
the needy, and the handicapped.'' He and others, like Dr. King, the
Dalai Lama, and others who you look to never talk about giving more to
the rich. Mr. Garamendi started talking about Franklin Roosevelt. The
fact is, those people who are the moral tests will suffer when the cuts
are made, and I don't see that as something I should support. I cannot
be sure of that.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. The lack of response from the Republican side is a bit
interesting because we are about to add $430 billion to this year's
deficit if this bill passes. That is $430 billion borrowed, probably
from China, added to the deficit. A record $1.75 trillion.
Now, we have been told this is the only deal, the best deal. No, we
have offered an alternative. And earlier today, I thought we had some
prospect of actually voting on it, one that's much less expensive, more
targeted to working families, average Americans, and those who are
unemployed would have created real jobs with substantial investment in
infrastructure projects, not the jobs you are going to get by giving
people small tax breaks and saying, Here is some borrowed money from
China; go out and buy some goods from China. That will put America on
the path to recovery.
Every other industrial nation on Earth is talking about buckling down
a little bit and austerity measures and having a sustained recovery.
No, not here. We got out the credit card. A trillion dollars--well, no.
It's only $858 billion. And guess what, our kids and grandkids are
going to be paying that bill for 30 years. And the most insidious part
is that $111 billion of that will come from the Social Security trust
fund.
But don't worry, after we take the money from the Social Security
trust fund and ask people to consume with it, present day consumption,
in order to take care of Social Security in the long term, we will go
out and borrow $111 billion from China and reinject it into the trust
fund. And then a year from today, the Republicans will say to President
Obama, You can't raise taxes on every working American. You can't
restore the Social Security tax. And, oh, by the way, we just can't
afford to subsidize that program anymore. We are just going to have to
cut it.
This is a bad deal. It isn't going to create the jobs we could create
for a smaller price tag. It's not going to give the relief we, as
Democrats, want to give the working families and unemployed Americans
and put this country on a path to recovery.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and get made in
order an amendment that would make major structural changes to this
deal. It
[[Page 22413]]
should not be a take-it-or-leave-it deal dictated by the Republican
minority leader.
Mr. DREIER. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Republican Senators have held America hostage, held the
American economy hostage, held hostage the middle class. And the
President agreed to pay the ransom. Now that ransom can be paid this
month with the consent not only of the President, but the Senators and
this House. So we can stop the ransom from being paid until the end of
the year. And at that point, the President will still be willing to pay
the ransom, and the ransom will go up.
If the ransom is going to be paid, let us pay it before it goes up.
Knowing that the President had agreed to the major and expensive
changes that the Republican Senators demanded, I sought to amend this
bill only in a modest way, only to the extent that we could do the deal
by the end of the year. And I put forward an amendment that would not
increase the cost of the bill by a penny or reduce the tax cuts that
the Republicans have been asking for by a penny. I asked only that
instead of the payroll tax holiday that needlessly involves the Social
Security trust fund and comingles general funds with the Social
Security trust fund, that we send out checks as soon as possible so
that the money the Republicans have already agreed should go to working
families would get to them perhaps in time to pay this year's Christmas
bills.
Unfortunately, no effort was made at the highest levels to secure the
support of even a couple of Republican Senators for that kind of minor
tweaking. And so we stand today with only one choice: pay the ransom
now, or pay more ransom later. This is not a place Democrats want to
be. But, ultimately, it is better to pay the ransom today than to watch
the President pay even more--and I think he'd be willing to pay a bit
more--next month.
Therefore, we are going to have to swallow hard. We are going to see
an estate tax law so bad that for the richest families where someone
died in 2010, the tax rate is going to be less than zero. The family
will be able to choose zero, or choose huge reductions in future income
taxes. And they will be well advised, and they will pick whatever costs
the Treasury the most money, and we will collect less than zero from
those families. We will see those with an income--not mere millionaires
but people with $1 million in annual income--get tax relief that they
won't spend and don't particularly need.
The choice is to pay the ransom now, or to watch it go up next month.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the chairperson of
the Rules Committee what a terrific job she is doing. And of course I
would urge us all to vote for the rule, but I don't think we should
vote for this tax cut.
{time} 1830
The idea is that we will kick all the tax cuts down the road for
another 2 years.
Have you ever seen anybody kicking a can? They never bend over and
pick it up and drop it in the trash can. They just keep kicking it. And
that's what we're going to do.
We knew back in 2001 and 2003, when we were told these tax cuts are
going to expire in 2011, that they weren't really going to expire. And
they're not going to expire either in an election year. Our President
isn't going to run in 2012 on a platform that he's going to raise your
taxes.
And with regard to Social Security, do we really think that next year
we're going to increase payroll taxes by fifty percent from 4 percent
to 6\1/4\ percent? We're not going to do that. And so what's really
going to happen is that we're going to take money out the general
revenue fund to keep Social Security solvent.
So what we're talking about is not $900 billion. It's really about $4
trillion more of lost revenue. That's what we're committing ourselves
to over the next several years.
And yet, back in 2001, President Bush inherited a surplus. The
discipline of PAYGO had created 3 straight years of surpluses. Imagine.
Think about that, because it's not going to happen again in our
lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren after this
vote is taken tonight. But we had a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion
at the end of the Clinton Administration. In fact, at the end of 2010,
we were going to have our debt paid off. Instead of having $12 trillion
plus of debt, we would have paid off all our indebtedness. And we would
have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and grandchildren's
generation. This doesn't.
This is the wrong thing to do. It's the easy thing to do. Everybody
loves a tax cut. You know, let's be Santa Claus. Let's give something
to everyone. In fact, there are 81 provisions in this tax bill. Most of
us have no idea what they actually do. But look through it; 81
different deductions and exemptions and giveaways and accessions to
lobbyists and so on. That's not what we ought to be doing at
Christmastime.
We ought, when we sit with our children and our grandchildren on our
laps, we ought to be proud that we have secured a better standard of
living for each of them, that we have looked into the future, and done
the right thing.
The Native Americans who originally lived in this land, they used to
make decisions based on how they would affect the seventh generation to
come. We can't even look 7 years ahead.
We ought to vote ``no'' on this tax bill because it's irresponsible.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill itself but ``yes''
on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the estate tax provisions in this
bill, and I'm thankful that the rule would allow us to vote against
this estate tax.
But I also oppose the extension of the high income tax cuts, and I
oppose the way we are doing the Social Security situation because I
think it will result in damage to Social Security. And this rule does
not give me the opportunity to vote against those two things. And
therefore, it's my intention to vote against the rule.
I've tried to make it clear to my leadership that I think it's
important for me to have that vote on those two issues, and they
haven't seen fit to make that in order. So I feel like I must, under
those circumstances, vote against the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, and I
regretfully oppose the rule and will oppose the bill. And the most
important reason is that this bill will not translate into job creation
in the United States of America. All it does is put our taxpayers on
the hook for another trillion dollars of borrowed debt that will be
from places like China, and from Saudi Arabia, in order to give more
tax cuts to the rich over the next 10 years. There is no guarantee that
that money will even be invested in the United States of America.
You know, the Dow is up 42 percent. NASDAQ is up 78 percent. Wall
Street is on track to see its second-highest profitable year on record
with a projected $144 billion in bonuses going out the door. Couldn't
they take some of that and make sure this goes to those who are
unemployed and still seeking to earn their way forward in this economy?
This bill will not be a real stimulus. In fact, it will only yield 33
cents of economic impact for every dollar that is borrowed to pay for
it. It will not create real robust growth and jobs in this country.
There is not even a ``Buy America'' provision in the bill. I'm so
[[Page 22414]]
sad for our Nation that we can't do better and help put America's
unemployed back to work.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the last speaker I have.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, May 9, 2001, was my son's 13th birthday.
Thirteen was a very unlucky year for him, and every other kid in
America. On that day, unemployment was 4.3 percent. Our Nation was
$5,600,286,010,418 in debt.
Nine years and 7 months since the passage of the Bush budget,
unemployment is 9.8 percent, and our debt has grown by a staggering
$8,204,749,146,330.57. If there's anyone in this body who wants to tell
me that the intended effect was to double the number of unemployed
people and to add $8 trillion to the debt and, therefore, we should do
more of this--I rise in opposition to this rule, and I beg this body to
defeat this bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I've listened to a number of my friends offer great
quotes. I listened to Mr. Jackson quote William Jennings Bryant,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Adam Smith. I listened to Mr. Garamendi
quote Teddy Roosevelt. And I've listened to--was it Franklin Roosevelt?
Okay. I thought somebody was quoting Teddy Roosevelt.
Well, I'd like to close by quoting one of our great former
colleagues, the late Jack Kemp, who, many times stood here in the well
and said, if you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize
something, you get more of it.
In America we tax work, growth, savings, investment, productivity. We
subsidize non-work, welfare, consumption, debt, and leisure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Jack Kemp was revered by Democrats and Republicans
alike, and he was someone who understood very clearly that if you
increase that tax burden on job creators, you undermine the ability of
people who are trying to get onto that first rung of the economic
ladder a chance to do that.
{time} 1840
We have a very important vote ahead of us. I don't like this bill. I
don't know of anyone who stood up and said that they liked this bill,
but I like even less the prospect of increasing taxes on every American
who pays income taxes today. That is why I believe we should move ahead
as expeditiously as possible so that, come January, we can have this
laser-like focus in our quest to grow our economy by reducing the size
and scope and reach of government so that we can increase opportunity
for all Americans.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to the rule,
and I want to take this opportunity to briefly describe the amendment.
The amendment shifts initial consideration of the Senate amendment to
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 into the
Committee of the Whole. After 3 hours of general debate, a vote will
occur on the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
and the Committee of the Whole shall rise. If the amendment passes, a
vote will occur on a motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with the
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. If the motion fails, a
vote will occur on a motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, the rule, and the previous
question.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have an amendment to this rule at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
``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
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853), to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure
authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend
title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for
the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the Senate amendment
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the Senate amendment and
the motions addressed by this resolution and shall not exceed
three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their designees. After general debate, the Senate amendment
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
No amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment may be offered only by
Representative Levin of Michigan or his designee and shall
not be debatable. All points of order against that amendment
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
``Sec. 2. Upon disposition of the proposed House amendment
made in order in the first section of this resolution, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise and report the Senate
amendment back to the House with such amendment as may have
been adopted.
``Sec. 3. (a) If the Committee of the Whole reports the
Senate amendment back to the House with an amendment, the
pending question shall be a motion that the House concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment with such amendment.
``(b) If a motion specified in subsection (a) fails of
adoption, the pending question shall be a motion that the
House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment
to the Senate amendment.
``Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole reports the Senate
amendment back to the House without amendment, the pending
question shall be a motion that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment.
``Sec. 5. Until completion of proceedings enabled by this
resolution--
``(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
motion, resolution, question, or notice;
``(b) the Chair may postpone proceedings in the House to
such time as may be designated by the Speaker;
``(c) each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this
resolution shall be considered as read; and
``(d) all points of order against pending motions specified
in sections 3 and 4 are waived (except those arising under
clause 10 of rule XXI), and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on each such motion to final adoption
without intervening motion or question of consideration.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment,
on the rule, and the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the amendment and on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the amendment to House Resolution 1766 will
be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption, if ordered; and the motion
to suspend the rules on S. 987.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 186, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 643]
AYES--230
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
[[Page 22415]]
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--186
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--17
Berry
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Davis (AL)
Granger
Johnson, E. B.
Kilroy
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Radanovich
Speier
Tanner
Van Hollen
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 1917
Messrs. McCOTTER, McINTYRE, SIMPSON, OBEY, and Ms. KOSMAS changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WATT and Ms. FUDGE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 201, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 644]
AYES--214
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--201
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Holt
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
[[Page 22416]]
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McMahon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Watt
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--18
Berry
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Granger
Johnson, E. B.
Kilroy
Kratovil
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Radanovich
Tanner
Tierney
Van Hollen
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 1926
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTING GIRLS BY PREVENTING CHILD MARRIAGE ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 987) to protect girls
in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and
for other purposes, 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. Berman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 166, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 645]
YEAS--241
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--166
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kaptur
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--26
Berry
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Cleaver
DeGette
Gohmert
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Halvorson
Hare
Johnson, E. B.
Kilroy
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Olver
Ortiz
Radanovich
Rangel
Rush
Salazar
Tanner
Van Hollen
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 1933
Messrs. LIPINSKI and COSTELLO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION
ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending any declaration of the House into
the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 1766, the Chair
would note that the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4853 contains an emergency
designation for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles under clause 10(c)
of rule XXI and an emergency designation pursuant to section 4(g)(1) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
Accordingly, the Chair must put the question of consideration under
clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI and under section 4(g)(2) of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The question is, Will the House now consider the Senate amendment to
the House amendment to the Senate amendment?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1766 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 Senate amendment
to the
[[Page 22417]]
House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 4853.
{time} 1937
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
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the
bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations
for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Sablan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is considered
read.
General debate shall not exceed 3 hours equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 90 minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GOHMERT. My parliamentary inquiry is, since the rules of the
House allow for someone in opposition to claim time in order to speak
on a bill, is that rule being abrogated now, or can we follow the rules
and have someone like me, who is opposed to the bill, claim time?
The CHAIR. No such rule is applicable to these proceedings.
Mr. GOHMERT. I'm sorry. I did not understand.
The CHAIR. There is no such rule.
Mr. GOHMERT. So this is set up now, the rules have been abrogated, so
no time is allotted to anyone in opposition? Did I understand that
correct, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry, then.
The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. GOHMERT. Under the rules of the House, going back to the Thomas
Jefferson rules of the House, as adopted by this majority in this term,
someone in opposition to a bill is always given the right to claim
time. So I am asking the parliamentary inquiry if that is now the case,
or if that rule--the standing rule--is not going to be allowed at this
time?
The CHAIR. The gentleman's premise is incorrect.
Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman's premise is incorrect?
So someone can claim time in opposition? Thank you.
The CHAIR. The House is operating under a rule that allocates control
of the time for debate to the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
{time} 1940
Mr. TAYLOR. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi will state his inquiry.
Mr. TAYLOR. I understand that under the rule just passed, the time
has been allocated to a proponent on this side of the aisle for the
bill, a proponent on this side of the aisle for the bill. The
understanding was, though, that time would be allowed to the opponents
of this bill.
I am asking if the Chair or someone would identify who that time will
be yielded to.
The CHAIR. The rule provides for the debate time to be allocated
equally and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that
we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers,
of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The
compromise before us clearly requires painful choices. These choices
relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this
package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth?
And does it promote fairness?
For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts
pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric,
they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to
the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if
the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth?
Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic
growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been
the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to
stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto
industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and
steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the
administration.
This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing
economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of
work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the
middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and
business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit,
and full expensing of business investment for 1 year.
Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans
have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced
engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to
rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that
violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers.
In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that
help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of
assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position
has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very
wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My
amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the
highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting
$23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be
used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the
6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three-
tenths of 1 percent of all estates.
I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the
legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the
interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then
the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be
painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on.
I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach
taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks,
obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on
the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate
of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican
majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican
leader that their main priority is the failure of our President.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise
taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing
tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.
If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle
class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their
paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no''
vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate
families and send shock waves throughout our economy.
If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its
tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent,
then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed
Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has
[[Page 22418]]
the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes,
then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking
more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote
``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting
rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax
Code--then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we
need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our
economy back on track.
I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans
are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better
deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be
blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and
the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally
forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even
greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen.
Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.
If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get?
People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I
support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But
how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make
that a reality?
The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have
made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we
didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President
has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell
me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble
with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to
put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.
Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession
since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches
or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what
is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this
legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of
Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they
cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the
largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is
supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax
hike.
{time} 1950
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because
they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of
Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the
spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this
legislation, and so should the Members of this House.
By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have
paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will.
I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and
pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We
should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing
this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold
this bill up.
Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our
economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.
And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax
policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about
spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy
is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or
providing direct tax relief to the American worker.
It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit
by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next
year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35
percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5
million.
Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But
think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs
of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of
the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million
each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field, and
the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad
passes on.
While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill
makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it
deserves our support.
Members should also know, and the American people should know, that
this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in
late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against
new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been
renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of
them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.
The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the
failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the
Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local
governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low-
income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual
Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on
tax and unemployment policy.
Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks
like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin.
There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New
Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job-
killing health care law.
My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign
here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from
going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before
our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take
yes for an answer.
So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate
did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Tonight is going to be a rather historic vote. In the old
days, the House would initiate tax bills, and then we would send it to
the Senate, and then the Senate and the House would come together and
have what was known as a conference.
But it's clear to me that rules are changing fast, and now that the
House has spoken in terms of a tax bill, in terms of giving some
comfort to those people who are unemployed, it seems to me now that it
works that the President works with a handful of Republicans and tells
us, on the House side, that if we change anything, there's absolutely
no deal. I think the President said that these people that were
unemployed were being held as hostage.
In addition to that, we find that all of the tax benefits seem to be
centered among the people who are the richest that we have in this
country, while we find more and more Americans going into poverty. I
submit to you that democracy cannot grow with this type of diversity,
where we find so much wealth held in the hands of so few and so many
other people are without jobs and without hope.
It would seem to me that we have time to correct these things.
There's nothing in the Constitution or the House rules that indicates
that we can't work closer to Christmas. I know other people believe
that this would be a violation of Christian values. But helping those
people who are poor, helping those people who are without jobs, I
submit to you and to Christians, Jews and Gentiles, that this will be
the proper thing to do, with the spirit of Christmas, rather than just
to do what people outside of the House have dictated that if we don't
do it their way, then these people that we have such a moral commitment
to will go without
[[Page 22419]]
compensation, and the rest of the people that deserve a tax break would
be denied if we don't go along with the package.
So, to Members who are coming to this body, this is a new set of
rules, a new set of tradition; but I tell you, it is not the American
tradition that I knew and loved so well.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, the bill that came to us from the Senate
is far from perfect. I'm going to vote ``yes'' because if the scheduled
$3.8 trillion tax increase takes effect in just 2 weeks, the
consequences for our economy could be catastrophic. Even if we reversed
this tax hike next year, families and small businesses would see higher
taxes immediately on January 1.
According to the Tax Foundation, the average middle class family in
my own northern California district would see their Federal income
taxes more than double. People in my district are already struggling.
Small businesses are barely hanging on. The unemployment rate is near
20 percent in several counties I represent. We simply cannot afford
this enormous tax hit.
This has been a difficult decision for me. I'm outraged that the
President and the Democratic leaders are demanding billions of dollars
in unpaid-for spending on unemployment benefits and special interest
giveaways as the price for stopping a massive tax increase.
Additionally, we should be making the current tax rate permanent. If
businesses face the threat of another tax increase in 2 years, they
will be reluctant to make investments that pay off in 5 or 10 years.
Madam Chairman, we have to provide long-term certainty for America's
small businesses. I commend Mr. Camp for his dedication to protecting
taxpayers and his hard work on this legislation. In the next Congress,
I look forward to working with Chairman Camp to fix this bill's flaws.
We must bring permanency to the Tax Code, and we must cut wasteful
Federal spending, both to pay for the unemployment benefits and also to
start bringing down our unsustainable Federal deficit.
Finally, I know from personal experience how much of a burden the
death tax is for family businesses. My relatives on my mother's side of
the family had to sell our own family's farm in North Dakota just to
pay the death tax bill. That should not happen in America.
I urge the House to vote ``no'' on the Pomeroy death tax amendment
and ``yes'' on the Senate bill.
{time} 2000
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from
North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chair, for the last five sessions I have worked to
try and clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. I felt the
right approach was ultimately to take the 2009 levels and make them
permanent.
The amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the 2009
levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the
Senate compromise.
The rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. The estate tax
in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years.
My friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered from
his family. He did not say it was at a much higher rate of tax than was
ultimately achieved in 2009. In fact, the rate in 2009 means 99.8
percent of the families in this country have no estate tax. Zero. It
went gradually lower and lower, and in 2009 hit a lower rate of
taxation for estates than was ever the case under Ronald Reagan, was
ever the case under George Bush I, was ever the case under George W.
Bush.
Now, why would we want to go with 2009 levels as opposed to the
Senate deal? It's simply a matter of money: $23 billion over 2. And,
quite possibly, the levels in the Senate bill would be the new rate for
the estate tax. In that case, we would lose $90 billion over 10.
I have heard on the other side such concern about unpaid-for
unemployment benefits. I have not heard one word about unpaid-for
estate tax levels. They would add to the national debt $23 billion more
than the 2009 levels. They don't pay for a cent of it, and they seem to
think that is fine. Do you know who benefits from the Senate tax levels
compared to the 2009 levels? 6,600 of the wealthiest families.
Let's go with the 2009 levels. Let's save $23 billion over 2, let's
save $90 billion over 10. Let's tackle these deficits, starting with a
fair estate tax level.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, a gun is pointed at the head of our
taxpayers, and it will go off January 1 unless Congress acts.
If we let that gun go off, it is going to hurt families who are
struggling to make ends meet, it is going to hurt small businesses
trying to survive this recession, it is going to hurt seniors, almost
tripling the taxes on the dividends that they need to live month to
month and day to day. It is going to hurt businesses trying to track
capital. And it is going to revive the death tax, an immoral tax where
you work your whole life to build up your nest egg, your small
business, your family-owned farm, and when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in
and takes more than half of everything you have earned. All that
happens if Congress refuses to act.
Some are here today saying, no, let's not change that death tax.
Let's raise that death tax.
Last night on my Facebook page, I got a posting from Tammy Fisher of
East Texas. Her family has had to sell 6,000 acres of their timber land
to pay the death tax. They held that land for 100 years.
Clarence Leaveritt of Texas is a rancher. His grandmother died. They
had to take out a loan from the bank to pay the death tax. They are
still paying on it. His father passed away recently, and they had to
take out a second loan. Today he is paying two loans to Uncle Sam and
can barely keep his ranch. And last night, we heard Democrats say,
Those people are stingy and cheap, and haven't worked a day in their
life.
All that death tax comes back January 1 if we don't act. And I'll
tell you what, we have some very good friends of mine who say, ``Look,
just let that gun go off because we can get a better deal later.''
Well, I am conservative and I am skeptical, and I am not raising taxes
for anyone for any period, period.
I don't like the spending in this bill, and I offered an amendment,
along with other conservatives, to cut $152 billion from this bill to
cover all the costs. We couldn't get a vote on that. We are voting on a
lot of things tonight, but not a straight up-or-down vote on trimming
government.
We didn't get that vote, but I can tell you, on the spending cuts,
this isn't the end of that discussion; it is the beginning. When we
have a new Republican majority, I'm going to take that gun down from
our taxpayers' head. I'm going to give them a chance to keep their own
money, get this economy going, and keep fighting for permanent tax
relief and a permanent death tax repeal.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an active member of our committee.
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, I am standing in opposition to this proposal. When we
debated the middle income tax cut a few weeks ago, I spoke in favor of
a tax system that we might design for the future, a progressive system
with substantial tax relief for working families, and, in our own
Democratic caucus, suggested that the number $250,000 was too low; that
if we raised that ceiling to $500,000, we could take care of every S
corporation, we could take care of every small business person who at
the end of the month uses their credit card. That was rejected. But I
still thought that was a reasonable compromise.
Now, when my friend Mr. Camp spoke a couple of minutes ago, he
delineated the clearest position of the two parties
[[Page 22420]]
when he said he was upset that we were not paying for the extension of
unemployment benefits.
For years they borrowed the money for Iraq, they borrowed the money
for Afghanistan, and, I challenge anybody on the other side tonight to
dispute this point, they borrowed the money for the Bush tax cuts as
well. That is what we are discussing here.
Now, the reason that I stand in opposition to this proposal tonight--
because there are many good provisions in this bill, including
alternative minimum tax, and I do wish the Build America Bonds program
was in here--this represents a serious threat to the solvency of the
Social Security system. We will never return that number down the road.
And you mark my words tonight, what they will argue down the road is
the Social Security system has been weakened, proving that you need
private accounts. Their fingerprints will be all over it. They will
suggest this proves the theory of the benefit of a private account.
So we borrowed the money for Iraq. And when I said to President Bush
in 2001 in the Oval Office, ``Mr. President, modest tax cuts for middle
income Americans,'' it was rejected. And that is why we are in the
condition that we are in today financially.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise today in
support of grownups, grownups who realize that the end of the year is
coming, and taxes will be raised if we don't act now.
When I first came to Congress, I knew that partisanship had taken
over. I knew the enormous extent of the philosophical divide, but I
didn't fully realize that entire years would go by without the two
sides working together to come up with an answer for the American
people. Sadly, it seems it takes a genuine crisis and a sense of panic
before we can work together. In any case, here we are.
The bill before us is not the bill that I would have written, that I
would have participated in; it is not the bill that conservative radio
talk show host or Tea Party constituents would have liked written; and
it is not the bill that The New York Times editorial page or the
President himself would have written. It is a compromise. This is what
a compromise looks like. Some so-called constitutionalists want to
ignore the fact that the Constitution itself actually was a compromise,
with a capital ``C.''
And while we are still in this bipartisan moment of clarity, let me
say a few other things. First, while I strongly disagreed with the
policies put forth by my Democrat colleagues, I do not envy them for
having to preside over the biggest economic collapse in a generation.
And while I believe their economic premise is misguided, I cannot fault
any legislator for sticking to his or her principles.
{time} 2010
What I do believe is unforgivable, however, is the tremendous
uncertainty that has been created over the past few years. Uncertainty
is not good for families; it is not good for investors; it is not good
for employers.
Regardless of the cause, all economic crises are ultimately a crisis
of confidence. Frankly, the Democrat-controlled government has
contributed to that. At a basic level, beyond all of the fancy models
and theory, the economy is really not that complicated. Uncertainty
leads to doubt, doubt leads to fear, and fear leads to paralysis; and
that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly where our country is today.
By refusing to work with this side of the aisle until this point, we
have prolonged uncertainty and aggravated the fear. Even here today, in
what feels like a great legislative compromise, the most we can deliver
for the American people is a year of this and 2 years of that.
The uncertainty must end, Madam Chair, and I believe Mr. Camp when he
says that we are going to work on that in January when the Republican
majority takes over. At this point, I don't much care what the policy
is. I just think it needs to be set in stone. My constituents want to
see all the tax cuts extended permanently, and they want the estate tax
eliminated permanently.
Now, let me make it clear: I probably have about five wealthy people
living in my district, so some might say, What do they care about the
estate tax? While they may not be wealthy, they certainly hope that
sometime in their life they will be wealthy or their children will be,
and they realize the impact of that. And based on the economic
situation, it is kind of a mystery to me why they would even care so
much about these rich people, but as I said, they probably would like
to work hard and become them.
Madam Chair, we know better and our constituents know better. If they
aren't rich, they have lived just long enough to know that in this
world there are no free lunches. You have to work for what you get and
you have to fight to keep it. So even though many of them are poor and
even though many of them are struggling, my constituents don't want
handouts. My constituents just want to be able to earn an honest living
and rest easy at night knowing that the government isn't going to come
in and suddenly swoop in and take everything away from them. For them,
Madam Chair, it is more than a matter of principle--it is simply a way
of life.
My constituents are upset that the tax cuts aren't permanent, and
many of them believe I should vote against this bill.
In short, the story cannot explain that despite the fact that only 2
percent of Americans are rich, more than half the country does not want
them to be taxed more to expand government spending. You know, the
truth of the matter is, Madam Chair, it is simple. They don't want
government's help and they don't want our generosity with other
people's money. My constituents simply don't buy it. They don't want a
nanny state, and they don't want somebody else to have to pay for it--
not their kids, not the Chinese, not their grandchildren, and not rich
people.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Norton). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Their philosophy and mine is we want the government to reward hard
work, savings, investment, and job creation. I simply don't think these
things should be punished, and certainly not in the name of fixing
everybody's problems everywhere, because at the end of the day, doing
that will just create more problems, more uncertainty, and more panic.
Finally, Madam Chair, my constituents know that we will never climb
out of this ditch as long as we keep moving that ladder. Keeping taxes
low has to be our goal. That is the ladder to getting out of that
ditch.
I urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill
and in support of the Pomeroy amendment. But let's be clear what this
legislation does tonight. It adds another $1 trillion to our national
budget deficit over the next 2 years. One trillion dollars.
Given the weak recovery we have going on with our economy, I think
everyone is in agreement that now is not the time to be increasing
taxes on working families and small businesses. We did that. We had
that vote just a couple of weeks ago, where we protected tax relief on
the first $250,000 worth of income, no matter who you are, and on small
businesses. That covered 98 percent of Americans.
But for those of you who are saying we need to continue tax breaks
for the wealthiest 3 percent that is included in this bill, I say, find
corresponding spending cuts in the budget to pay for it so we are not
having to go to China to borrow another $300 billion and adding to the
debt burden of our children and grandchildren.
These are two unstated facts that we have before us today that no one
is
[[Page 22421]]
talking about and that are not being reported in the media. First, our
effective tax rate in this country today is at a 60-year low. A 60-year
low. That predates the Medicare program and it certainly predates the
80 million baby boomers who are about to begin their massive retirement
and join Medicare and Social Security.
But also, the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 3 percent is not
the 36 or 39 percent marginal rate that some talk about. The effective
tax rate for the wealthiest 3% is 17 percent, after they itemize and
they deduct and back out their expenses with the numerous tax loopholes
that exist in the current code. That is less than the average working
family is paying with their effective tax rate. We cannot sustain that.
It is irresponsible.
Now, about a week from now little boys and girls around the country
are going to be waiting for Santa Claus' arrival. And I hope they are
not watching this debate tonight, because the truth is there is no
Santa Claus for the U.S. economy. But there are too many people in this
Congress who think that their Kris Kringle is China that they can run
to and borrow money from in order to sustain a fiscally and
economically reckless policy. Rather than their children leaving out
cookies and milk for Santa, they instead should leave out their piggy
banks because of what we're doing to them in this bill.
We can do better, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this legislation.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, let me address just a few of the issues that I have been
hearing here on the floor. I am hearing some of my colleagues from the
other side of the aisle saying, ``We just can't afford these tax
cuts.'' Well, let's look at it.
Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax
cut. What we are talking about here is not cutting taxes. We are
talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax
increases.
The second point: We, meaning the government, can't afford this.
Whose money is this, after all? Is all the money that is made in
America Washington's money, the government's money, or is it the
people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax,
the estate tax. This is going to give a windfall to these people, all
this money going to these privileged people who have built these
businesses, made all this money. It's their money.
Which is it? Do we have a country built on equal natural rights,
where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take
risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, earn
success, and, yes, pass it on to your kids? What on Earth is wrong with
that? That's the American Dream.
And to my friends on my side of the aisle who simply don't like some
of the spending in this bill, I don't like it either. So let's cut the
spending next year when we're in charge.
There's junk in the Tax Code. Everybody agrees with this. This is
advancing some of the junk in the Tax Code. And what I say to my
friends on the other side of the aisle is, next year, let's get rid of
that junk in the Tax Code when we're in charge. But right now, let's
not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.
If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our
deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: We need
to cut spending and we need to grow the economy.
We need prosperity in this country. We need job creation. We need
people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying
taxes so the revenues can reduce the deficit. And if we raise taxes,
even the Congressional Budget Office is telling us, if this bill fails
and these tax increases continue, we're going to lose 1.25 million jobs
next year. Do we want to do that?
Low tax rates give us economic growth. Low tax rates make us
competitive in the international economy. Low tax rates allow
businesses to plan.
Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. You know why
it's not a growth package? Because it still proposes to move this
uncertainty forward. It's only a 2-year extension.
{time} 2020
So we're not talking about a pro-growth economic package, but we're
talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being
inflicted on the American people in about 2 weeks. The last thing you
want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with
a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off, and lose jobs.
So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do. And that's
exactly what we're going to be advancing. But the last thing we want to
do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. We need economic growth. We
need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing. And I think
that's the message the voters sent us here. So let's prevent this tax
increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this
bill next year. And let's make sure that when people go to Christmas,
they know they're not going to have a massive tax increase 5 days
later.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy
from getting worse. This is not a bill that's going to turn it around.
Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 15 seconds to Mr. Welch of Vermont, followed
by 3 minutes to Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
Mr. WELCH. We have been awarded 45 minutes to state our objections to
this bill. And it is essentially this: Too much debt, too few jobs, too
much risk to Social Security.
Our lead speaker is the member from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in about a month, almost every
Member of this body will be speaking at events in their district
commemorating the life of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his famous,
``I Have a Dream'' speech. Amid the soaring rhetoric and the beautiful
prose, Dr. King made a clear point. In a sense, we have come to our
Nation's capital ``to cash a check. When the architects of our Republic
wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every
American wants to fall heir. That note was a promise that all men would
be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.''
And I paraphrase, It is obvious today that America has defaulted on
this promissory note. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation,
America has given the people a bad check which has come back marked
``insufficient funds.'' But we refuse to believe the bank of justice is
bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the
great vault of opportunity in this great Nation. So we have come to
cash this check--a check that will give us upon demand the riches of
freedom and the security of justice.
Mr. Chairman, if we pass this bill, it will signal a refusal to pay
our fair share into the vaults of opportunity for all Americans. It
will drive up the debt and put pressure on our Nation's Capital to cut
programs for the most vulnerable. If this agreement passes, when out-
of-work Americans look in the 112th Congress for help in paying their
rent, our Nation's Capital will look to those Americans and say,
insufficient funds. When we look to veterans who need health care that
is owed them, the 112th Congress will say, insufficient funds. When our
schools look for funding they need to teach our kids, our Congress will
say, insufficient funds.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will only drive up the deficit, which is
already too high in the eyes of the American people. It will put even
more pressure on Congress and the President to cut vital programs when
we convene next year.
If this sounds familiar to the American people, it should. In the
early 1980s, President Reagan's budget director, David Stockman,
conceived of a strategy called ``starve the beast.'' By
[[Page 22422]]
cutting taxes and increasing military spending, the President could
force Congress to cut social spending in order to control the deficit.
As Stockman put it, they would cut ``real blood and guts stuff.'' You
heard it from the Budget chairman a few moments ago. When they're in
charge, they plan to cut real blood and guts stuff.
Mr. Chairman, if this tax deal goes through, blood and guts will
affect us. At a time when they're needed the most, they will put these
important programs on the chopping block. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we
refuse to believe that the American people should be forced to accept
this tax deal, to accept ``insufficient funds.'' We see $858 billion
that should be in the vaults of opportunity of this Nation. And that's
why we oppose this bill.
Members will follow me opposed to any argument that say there are
insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity to rebuild this
Nation.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, today we debate legislation to
prevent taxes from increasing on all taxpayers as our economy struggles
to recover. We know without any doubt that virtually all Americans will
be forced to send more of their hard-earned dollars to Washington on
January 1, 2011, if we fail to act.
Although this legislation is not perfect in my estimation, the
package does provide a measure of certainty and predictability that
will allow broader debate in the coming Congress without immediately
damaging our fragile economy. This package will prevent devastating tax
increases from falling on the backs of hardworking Americans, small
businesses, and job-creating investments.
This imperfect legislation represents the best agreement that can be
reached by Republicans and Democrats determined to avoid the shock to
our economy that would come from increasing taxes on the American
people and many of our job creators. A vote against this agreement,
which would prevent the largest tax increase in history, is really a
vote for a $3.8 trillion job-killing tax increase. Regardless of what
side of the aisle the opposition comes from, they're willing to accept
the proposition that taxes will increase for all Americans. They may
hope to gain political points, but I am not willing to let perfect
stand in the way of good when it comes to matters that negatively
impact the paychecks of Kentuckians.
Earlier this week, this package earned the bipartisan support of more
than 80 Senators. If we fail today, middle class families will see
roughly $100 per week taken out of their paychecks. Increasing taxes
now will cause more pain for families with tight budgets, force small
businesses to cut more employees, and further slow economic growth
throughout the Nation.
Critics of extending the tax cuts for Americans have suggested that
the cost will add to the deficit in coming years. While taxing is a
functioning of government, the Federal Government is not entitled to
any specific amount of revenue from the American people. What is the
``cost'' of letting Americans and job creators keep their own money?
Because of budgetary gimmicks in Washington, many Members of Congress
have lost sight of the fact that the money Congress spends comes from
the American people, is owned by the American people, and the debt we
accrue falls on their shoulders. Instead of following the budgetary
common sense possessed by most Americans, Democrats and Republicans in
Congress have routinely spent well beyond their means.
Now, many of my colleagues are looking to the pockets of the American
people to foot the bill rather than making tough choices to cut
spending in Washington. If less tax revenue is coming into the
Treasury, Congress has an obligation to spend less. Democratic
leadership in the House refuses to accept that proposition. Rather than
take steps to solve excessive congressional spending, Democrats in
Congress have had one response to the problem of our mounting debt:
send more money.
Americans have lost faith in the ability of their Federal Government
to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and self-control. Why would they
trust those who claim the tax increases are the answer to our fiscal
problems? With the tax record of this Congress, increasing taxes is
tantamount to entrusting your teenager with a credit card.
This past November, voters sent a clear message, a restraining order
on Washington: stop the political games with our economy, restore
fiscal sanity to Washington, and create certainty and stability in our
markets. American families and small businesses can't afford for
Congress to play chicken with their hard-earned tax dollars rather than
renewing the expiring tax cuts. Therefore, if Congress chooses to
ignore the demands of the people, dragging the debate into the next
year, the result will be more money taken out of American families'
paychecks, impeded job creation, and more partisan political bickering.
Were I drafting this legislation, I would repeal the AMT, permanently
abolish the estate tax, make the tax reductions permanent for all
Americans, and insist that the unemployment compensation be offset by
commonsense spending reductions. However, President Obama has made it
clear that he won't sign an extension of current tax relief without the
unemployment provisions or that makes the 2001 and 2003 tax relief
permanent. Congress must develop and adopt a workout plan to eliminate
the deficit just like any business or family in financial trouble.
Congress must learn from the mistakes epitomized by Washington's
``bailout'' culture and support policies to increase American
competitiveness and improve the economic climate for entrepreneurs and
small businesses. The road to prosperity allows you to take more home
to your family and enjoy the economic freedom that historically has
been a hallmark of American culture.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. ``Moment of Truth'' is the very appropriately entitled
report of the President's bipartisan deficit commission, since it took
barely a moment for him to cut a deal with Senate Republicans that
spikes our national debt upwards almost a trillion dollars in new
borrowing from the Chinese and others. This deal borrows from our
future to throw tax money at problems with the efficiency of most of
its provisions that you would get if people stood and shoveled out cash
at the front door of the Capitol.
{time} 2030
Billionaire estate bonuses, or 1 percent of the people getting a
giant tax cut--that doesn't provide meaningful job growth.
There is a very good reason we pay Social Security taxes: in order to
share in the old-age survivor and disability insurance that is Social
Security. This proposed Republican payroll tax holiday is not a day at
the beach. It endangers the very fabric of Social Security. That is why
the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has
rightfully called this bad deal ``a disaster'' for Social Security.
In a very few months, these same Republican privatizers of Social
Security will claim, just as they are tonight about the Bush tax
proposal, that we are raising taxes on workers when we seek to end this
alleged ``temporary'' payroll tax cut.
This same dangerous deal for Social Security discriminates against so
many people, who tonight are on the front lines with their lives, as
our firefighters, as our law enforcement officers, as those who educate
our children--those who provide vital public services. They don't get a
dime out of this provision. Ninety-five percent of the public employees
in Massachusetts and a majority of those in the State of Texas get
absolutely no benefit from this provision.
This bill undermines a guiding Democratic principle--dignity for
seniors--and it undermines 75 years of Social Security.
[[Page 22423]]
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this bipartisan tax
compromise. We need to do this. We need to do this to prevent a massive
tax increase on the American people, on American families and on
American businesses.
The clock is ticking and the American people are waiting. If Congress
doesn't approve this proposal, our small businesses will be saddled and
crushed by a $858 billion tax hike. One-third of all business activity
in the United States will see higher taxes--businesses that create 80
percent of our jobs in this country. Raising taxes on small businesses
in the middle of a recession is absolutely the last thing Congress
should do. Even those in Congress who want to raise taxes must question
the timing of doing so when credit is scarce, wages are being cut, and
people are losing their jobs.
As I travel around my district, I hear one consistent theme over and
over again from small business owners: they need certainty. They want
certainty--certainty so they know what Uncle Sam is going to take from
them from their bottom lines now and into the future; certainty so they
can plan for and make future investments--hire workers and buy
equipment; certainty so they can pursue the American Dream without
worrying about how government will get in the way.
Opponents of extending all of the individual income tax rates ignore
the fact that more than 4.5 million small businesses in America pay
taxes at the individual rate, not at the corporate rate. Failure to
extend the current individual tax rates is a tax hike on small
businesses.
My colleagues who want to discuss comprehensive tax reform should
remember that extending all of the rates now will give us the chance to
have that discussion without adding a massive tax increase on small
businesses.
Avoiding this tax hike is just as important for families across this
country as it is for our small businesses. Millions of Americans are
employed by small businesses that will face this tax hike; and in many
cases, their wages and their jobs hang in the balance of the decision
that we will make here today.
The business world needs certainty and families need certainty--
certainty to plan for the cost of higher education for their children,
certainty to buy homes that they can call their own, and certainty for
the day-to-day task of making ends meet in order to provide for the
basic needs of their families. Businesses are struggling and families
are hurting. The last thing we need government to do is to reach deeper
into their pockets and take their hard-earned dollars.
This compromise package isn't perfect, as has been said over and
over--compromise rarely is--but perfection shouldn't be the barrier to
what is practical and necessary.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I came to peace with my decision on this
bill this weekend when I was holding my 2-year-old grandson, Brody, who
was checking out the Christmas tree. I became focused on the real
question before us: Is it right to put $858 billion of debt on that
kid's shoulders? The answer is ``no'' for three reasons.
First, this bill represents an old and unsuccessful experiment in
supply-side economics. It has failed time and time again. In 2001, it
was going to create jobs. It didn't create a single net job. Most of us
remember when the first President Bush called this type of scheme
``voodoo economics.'' Do you remember that? Well, this is deja vu
voodoo economics, and we have no interest in erecting a fiscal monument
to the failed policies of George Bush.
Second, let's be honest about what this deal is--a bipartisan deal
gone bad. It's a case where both sides handed out candy to their
favorite constituencies, put the candy together in one pile of $858
billion of deficit spending and said, We will sober up, just not today.
We've got to have time to eat our spinach, not just our candy. Stop
kicking this can down the road. True bipartisanship will happen when
both parties confront fiscal reality and become responsible.
Third, we have to face the music as to what this deal is. It's just
another case of using an overextended credit card. We cannot build an
economy based on consumer credit card spending, which is what got us in
the hole in the first place. This deal does not educate one kid; it
does not build one bridge; it does not lead to the production of one
innovative company. It doesn't build America. It just builds American
debt.
So let's learn from our past. Let's put away the credit card. Let's
get an unemployment extension the old-fashioned way. Let's have more
jobs and less debt.
Let's defeat this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, indeed, this is a sad state of affairs in which we find
ourselves and having to deal with this in the waning days of the 111th
Congress. In just a mere 16 days, a massive tax increase--$3.8
trillion--will hit every American taxpayer at a time when we are
dealing with high unemployment, very sluggish economic growth, and
uncertainty about our future.
American families and businesses have had uncertainty hanging over
their heads for months, and we have known about the date of the
expiration of these tax provisions. It is time for this Congress to
act. It is way past due.
No one is satisfied. No one in this body, I'm sure, is satisfied
completely with this bill. I certainly don't like provisions in it. We
may not like the situation that we find ourselves in, but it is this
situation that determines our duty to act.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot roll the dice with the American economy and
with the fate of American families and American businesses. That would
be the height of irresponsibility, and we have seen enough of that in
this 111th Congress. Let's examine just some of the provisions in this
bill.
If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to prevent tax increases on
working Americans. You are voting to prevent tax increases on small
businesses and job-creating investments.
If you vote ``no,'' you are voting for a job-killing $3.8 trillion
tax increase that kicks in on January 1, and it will be paid for by
every taxpayer and most small businesses in this country. If you vote
``no,'' you are basically voting to allow for the average middle class
family to see $100 pulled out of their paychecks every week. That is a
lot of money for the average family.
If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to prevent a hike in the death
tax on our family farmers and small business owners, who take risks and
who have built farms and small businesses--taking those risks in a
uniquely American way.
{time} 2040
Why do we want to penalize that? Mr. Chair, now there are some who
say on our side that we ought to wait. They may think it's good
politics. They may think we may have more leverage. Well, it's not all
that clear as to what could be gained if we were to wait. But I will
say this, Mr. Chair: It's inevitable that there would be delays in
enacting any kind of a package, and as a result of the delays, months
going by perhaps, we'll see a job-killing massive tax hike on everyone.
For those concerned about the deficit, certainly a concern I share,
this tax increase will basically hit economic growth, hit prosperity in
this country like a category 5 hurricane. It will put us back into a
recession, and the prospects to try to correct these problems will be
even worse and make it much more difficult for us to act in the future.
Let's be clear. This is not a pro-growth program as my colleague Mr.
Ryan said earlier. This is a 2-year
[[Page 22424]]
agreement. It is a first step in correcting the severe problems that we
find ourselves in. This will give us time to move forward with
fundamental tax reform which, when coupled with spending decreases,
cutting spending, we can get our country back on a sustainable economic
course, a sustainable path to prosperity, a sustainable path to restore
American competitiveness and to restore American leadership at a time
when we need to do this from a position of economic strength.
So let's clear the slate so that we can start anew in January to get
our country back on a competitive basis. I urge our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support the passage of this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a member of
our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate
amendment to the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.
This bill has good parts to it for the poor and the middle class, but
it gives away $120 billion to the superrich, $120 billion the rich
don't need, and will not create any jobs. It's a huge giveaway to the
superrich in these tough economic times. It just boggles the mind. It's
unconscionable. It's indefensible.
We all know the only reason we're even considering this craziness is
to get Republican votes in the Senate so they won't filibuster the
bill. That Republicans insist on giving away taxpayer money to the rich
while sticking it to the poor and the unemployed is worse than wrong.
It is without conscience.
Yesterday, my State of Washington announced it will cut all of the
working poor health care from the State basic health plan. 66,000
people and 16,000 low-income children will lose their health care. All
they will have is the emergency room. It doesn't end there. Washington
State is also cutting off 85,000 elderly off their drug assistance
program. These are people's lives we're talking about, and we're
pushing American families off their last lifelines during a recession
to give tax breaks to the rich. That's the Republican tradeoff.
Americans don't want this giveaway. They want us to act with
compassion and economic common sense and not help start another
Republican economic disaster.
We could and should fix this bill with fair rates, but we won't
because Senator McConnell says, Give me money for the rich.
I urge you to vote against it.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate Amendment to the
Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.
This bill has good parts to it for the poor and middle class, but it
gives away $120 billion dollars to the super rich--$120 billion dollars
the rich don't need and will do nothing to create jobs.
A huge give-away to the super-rich in these tough economic times just
boggles the mind.
We all know the only reason we're even considering this craziness is
to get Republicans votes in the Senate so they won't filibuster the
bill.
That Republicans insist on giving away tax payer money to the rich
while sticking it to the poor and unemployed is worse than wrong--it's
without conscience.
Just yesterday my own State of Washington announced it will cut all
of the working poor from the State basic health plan.
Working poor numbering 66,000 and 16,000 low income children will
lose their health care--all they'll have is the emergency room. It
doesn't end there--Washington State is pushing 85,000 elderly off of
drug assistance too.
This bill undermines Social Security and increases taxes on the poor.
Republicans won't ever want to restore the so-called temporary 2-year
cut to social security taxes in this bill. Republicans will soon be
calling the restoration of this tax, which keeps social security
solvent, a `tax hike'. Then Republicans will bring up privatization as
the only way to solve the shortfall. As a replacement to the Making
Work Pay Credit, this tax cut actually increases taxes on the poor, and
gives even more tax benefits to the rich.
This bill creates only stop-gap funding for unemployment insurance.
Next year at this time unemployment will still be high, and we'll have
another mean-spirited debate that demonizes the unemployed.
The give-aways and bad policy in this bill are capped off with the
wasteful, environmentally disastrous Ethanol subsidy. Subsidizing
ethanol distorts food markets and slows this country's real progress
toward a sustainable green energy economy.
This bill transfers enormous amounts of wealth from the average
American tax payer into the pockets of the wealthiest of this country
at a huge cost.
These are people's lives we're talking about. We're pushing American
families off their last life lines during a recession to give tax
breaks to the super rich. That's the Republican trade off.
Americans don't want this give-away. They want us to act with
compassion and economic common sense--and not help start another
Republican economic disaster.
We should fix this bill with fair rates for the wealthy and funding
for unemployment insurance that lasts until the working families of
this country are back on their feet.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The State of Washington is cutting the working health care for the
working poor? That's what we heard a minute ago. But wasn't it just an
argument just a couple of months ago, Mr. Chair, that if this body took
up the ObamaCare that basically the birds were going to be chirping and
the sun was going to come out and the clouds were going to part and the
economy was going to be fabulous and we were not going to have another
health care problem again? But what happened? Running ramrod through
this body ended up a job-killing health care bill, and now we're
wringing our hands. It's amazing to me.
Back when I was in the Illinois General Assembly, Mr. Chair, I used
to practice law, and there was one time when I filed a motion at a
courthouse and I approached a judge, and he knew that I was a
legislator. And with a twinkle in his eye, he said, Well, Mr. Roskam,
let's see how you voted on the judicial pay raise, and he kind of
looked underneath his blotter. He was teasing me, and I quickly said,
Well, Your Honor, I voted ``no'' but I hoped ``yes.'' He thought about
that for a second and he said, Motion granted.
Now, I hope today there's a whole lot of show business going on here,
because I hope today, Mr. Chair, what's happening is that there's a lot
of people who say they're voting ``no'' that aren't really voting
``no.'' I mean, with due respect to my friend and colleague from the
State of Illinois who acknowledged that there's insufficient funds, he
thinks there's going to be insufficient funds, Mr. Chair, in the 112th
Congress? Hey, look around, 111th Congress, there isn't sufficient
funds.
This Congress and this leadership, Mr. Chair, has doubled our
national debt in 5 years and, based on their own numbers, will triple
that national debt in 10 years. So this is not a news flash that's
coming in the 112th Congress. It's here today.
We had Debt Dependence Day here in the United States on August 4 of
this year, which was the date at which every dime that went out from
the Federal Government, Mr. Chair, was borrowed money. So let's not act
as if this is a new issue. This is not a new issue.
Here's the issue that's before us: We're looking at a cataclysmic tax
increase that has the potential to drive us and to push us to a tipping
point and a spiral that goes further and further down.
Now, let me talk to friends on my side of the aisle who think a
better deal is coming. Friends on my side of the aisle say, Oh, we're
going to get a better deal. On January 5, we'll pass a bill. On January
6, somehow, miraculously, the Senate is going to pass it. On January 7,
the President is going to remove all his objections. Even assuming, Mr.
Chair, that that's true, let's think that through for a second.
Okay. So January 7, a new fabulous bill is signed into law. It's not
until mid-February until the Internal Revenue Service can deal with
that. It's not until mid-March when corporations and payers can deal
with it. And so,
[[Page 22425]]
again, at the best case scenario, you're looking at sucking the life
out of this economy for 90 days. And what does that do to all of our
constituents? That puts us in a downward trajectory that none of us
want. Nobody wants that.
You know, I think one of the messages of November 2 is that we need
to come together and work together. Yeah, there's things in this bill I
don't like. There's things in this bill that I'm not pleased with, but
I do know that at all costs we need to avoid a job-killing tax
increase.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wanted to ask the question. I was hoping the gentleman might
comment on whether or not his impression of the bill was that it was
deficit neutral. The gentleman has spoken about the deficit in the
past. I wanted to know if he wanted to comment on that.
Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time, clearly it's not deficit neutral.
Clearly, it does add to the deficit, which is why I said that it's not
completely satisfactory. So Mr. Ryan, as ranking member and incoming
chairman of the Budget Committee, has indicated what his intentions
are.
But, you know, I do find it ironic that there is this newfound robust
interest on the other side of the aisle as it relates to deficit
reduction, notwithstanding the CBO's, OMB's, and everybody else's
numbers that the national debt will triple in 10 years based on the
current majority.
So I've said my piece, but I think it's very clear that what we need
to avoid, Mr. Chair, at all costs, is raising taxes and putting this
economy into a spiral out of which real, real difficulties come.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member
of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. A vote on this agreement may or may not be good
politics, but it is wrong. It continues the Washington tradition of
ducking tough issues, making suboptimal choices, and trying to make
every interest group happy.
I'll be the first to admit that it contains items I support,
including some I've worked hard to enact, but they're not worth the
price, no matter how much I've invested in them.
{time} 2050
This should be the time when we stopped adding to the deficit with
nothing to show for it but a temporary boost to pocketbooks with a
minimal boost to the economy and controversies that will continue
nonstop through the next election. If, like a prudent family, we must
borrow, it should not be for current operations but for long-term
investment. The tinkering around the edges of the tax code and the
fixes, like the need to continue to ``patch'' the AMT in order to
protect 30 million people, is counterproductive. It will cost money to
repair the broken tax code, but it is an investment well worth the
cost.
We should, instead, repeal the AMT, lower the rates, broaden the
base, make the code simpler, more fair, and less costly. If we will be
$1 trillion more in debt, we should at least address the infrastructure
deficit. That would at least pay for itself with projects that will
last for decades while putting hundreds of thousands to work at family
wage jobs.
Make no mistake, this vote means an exchange for a little temporary
relief weighted in favor of those who need it the least. This bill
means Americans will pay more in debt and interest, a sluggish economy,
and costs of an unfair tax system. It's a bad bargain for the future of
America's families.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I don't have time to detail all that is wrong with this bill, so I
will focus on one very small part of it. It's the Social Security
payroll reduction. I want everybody in this body to remember this
figure, this one number: $2,136. $2,136--that's the raise that we're
all giving ourselves with this bill. That's the raise that we're giving
ourselves, and we're borrowing every penny of it from our kids and our
grandkids, or probably China.
$2,136. We don't know where that came from. I asked people in this
body, How did that provision get in here? It's not part of extending
current tax rates, keeping the tax rates current. This is something
completely new. We're told, Oh, somebody in the Senate put that in. But
nobody has sought to remove it here. But keep in mind, again, $2,136.
That's how much every Member of this body--because all of us make more
than $106,000 a year, so all of us are giving ourselves a $2,136 raise
with this legislation. We had better remember it because the voters
certainly will.
As I mentioned, we're borrowing this money. We don't have it. We
can't pull it from another account. There is nothing in the Social
Security Trust Fund to take it from, so we're borrowing it, every penny
of it. So just remember that number, $2,136. That's the raise we are
giving ourselves with this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our families are hanging by threads--
literally--as we debate this tonight. We know the economic wreckage
that occurred between 2001 and 2008. Double unemployment, flat wages,
and unbridled greed. We didn't do a very good job in correcting the
problem in the second 2 years since we took over, no question about it.
So these are perilous times.
And I say to my friend from Arizona, both sides agree. We need
extraordinary remedies in extraordinary times. Ordinarily, your side
and our side would vote against this legislation because it's not paid
for. But these are not ordinary times.
You have said in the past ``no'' to tax relief that every American,
even billionaires, could take advantage of, if an extra 2,800 estates
don't get a massive tax break at a cost of $60 billion. We had an
agreement on the estate tax. H.R. 4151 provided a $7 million exemption
for families, affecting less than 0.02 percent of the country. That
wasn't good enough. So when the negotiations over the next tax relief
for America's middle class started, opponents saw the chance. They
decided to take the middle class hostage, agree with the tax relief for
all of America, only if 2,800 additional estates worth over $7 million
were also provided billions more in tax relief.
The truth of the matter is that I don't know any working class
families that own estates worth over $7 million. Maybe you do in your
district. No, you said to middle class tax relief, if the top bracket
is not extended for the top 2 percent, so as to give $63.2 billion to
315,000 families making over $1 million a year.
I ask for your support of this amendment.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor
of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give
the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say,
this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as
the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
When I ran for Congress, I made a pledge to the people of Kansas that
I would not vote to raise their taxes. Today I will honor that pledge
and vote for the tax bill before us because a ``no'' vote on this
measure is a vote to raise taxes on every American taxpayer, every
working parent, every small businessperson, every retiree, everyone.
While the economy struggles to get back on its feet and unemployment
remains at nearly 10 percent, allowing liberals to achieve their goal
of raising taxes on American families and small businesses by nearly $4
trillion is extremely bad economics.
There are several aspects of this provision that I am adamantly
against, including the massive deficit spending
[[Page 22426]]
required to extend unemployment benefits for 13 months that are not
paid for and the onerous 35 percent death tax which will create
hardship for many family farms across the entire Midwest. But failure
to pass this legislation will be the equivalent of reaching into the
bank account of every middle class family and pulling out an additional
$5,000 next year. The families I represent in Kansas have had to
tighten their belts and can't figure out why Washington continues to
raid their bank accounts and refuses to tighten the belt of the Federal
Government.
It is truly sad that we have reached this point. The current majority
could have addressed this issue at any time over the last 2 years, but
they were so busy throwing money at solutions in need of problems that
they didn't take time to build a budget, appropriate money, or address
the issue of taxes, and now our backs are against the wall. While this
is far from the ideal permanent extension we desire, a 2-year extension
of all the current tax rates provided in this bill gives business some
short-term certainty so they can go out and invest and hire new workers
to grow the economy, and it provides Congress with a window to truly
reform the tax code correctly without a mad scramble next year to undo
the damage.
When we reconvene in January, it is imperative that the next
Congress, led by a new majority, reform our tax code and the death tax,
rein in spending, and balance our budget. Placing punitive and
oppressive taxes on hardworking Americans until Washington can agree on
how best to accomplish all that is not the right way to go about this.
Kansans expect more of their representatives in Washington. I urge my
colleagues to cast a vote against tax increases and vote in favor of
this bill.
{time} 2100
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished Member from the great State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill. The people
in the State of Nevada are having a very tough time right now. We have
the highest unemployment rate in the country and the highest mortgage
foreclosure rate. The people in my district are particularly hard hit.
One in five people that I represent have no jobs. The unemployment
benefit extension in this piece of legislation is critical to the very
survival of so many of the families that I represent.
Everybody thinks of my district of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas as a
very glitzy, shiny, wonderful town, and it is all of those things. But
it's a working class town, and most people don't fully appreciate that.
I represent construction workers and electricians and plumbers, Keno
runners and cocktail waitresses and waiters and waitresses and valets
and porters. All of these people are middle-income wage earners, and
the middle-income tax extension is going to be a tremendous help to
these families.
The child care tax credit, so many of the people that I represent in
Las Vegas are single mothers who are working. The bane of every single
mother, and I know this, is good child care at an affordable price. The
child care tax credit makes a difference whether these women can go to
work or not.
If you add in the alternative minimum tax, 33,000 of the people I
represent will be slammed by that if we don't extend it.
Marriage penalty tax, earned income tax, these are all very important
to the middle-income wage earners that call Las Vegas and Nevada home.
One of the most important things is the tax extenders that are
included in this. Nevada is one of eight States that does not have a
State income tax. If you're a State income tax State, you can deduct
your State income tax from your Federal income tax. Nevada doesn't have
one, so we, a few years ago, along with Brian Baird and a few others,
were able to get an extension for sales tax and being able to deduct
the sales tax.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Snyder). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, job creation is priority number one.
Fourteen million Americans are striving every day to find a job. But
what they fail to understand in Washington, to get a job, you've got to
promote small business and free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
Seventy percent of all the jobs created in America are created by
small business. In my State of Florida, 99 percent of all businesses
registered in Tallahassee, our capital, are either small businesses or
medium-sized businesses mainly, a couple of hundred employees or less.
To raise taxes in this environment, when many businesses right now
are struggling, on the verge of trying to stay open--many of them can't
get credit. If we raise the taxes on small businesses--and a lot of
people don't realize, a lot of small businesses are subchapter S, LLCs,
partnerships, sole proprietorships, so it's all pass-through income to
them personally. But raising taxes on small business, they're saying it
will affect 48 percent of the businesses if we don't pass this today.
People ask, Why is it that business doesn't have any confidence right
now or the confidence they should?
They just don't believe what's happening in Washington. The
administration and this Congress, in their mind, and they're right, is
very antibusiness.
So if we want to create jobs, the last thing we should be doing is
raising taxes on small businesses. If we want to help families and we
want to get people back to work, we need to pass this bill and do what
we can. No tax increases come January 1.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of our committee.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is
credited with saying that taxation is the price that we pay for a
civilized society. And today we need the money.
As a matter of fact, I was in a meeting 2 days ago at CEDA--that's
the organization in Chicago and Cook County that services low-income
families--trying to figure out how to help some of my constituents get
their homes heated, because it might be snowing in Washington, but it's
cold in Chicago.
The telephone rang. Somebody said, Could you take a call from the
President? I said, Which President? They said, Well, the President of
the United States. And I said, Of course, I'll take it.
I got on the phone and the President said to me, Danny, we need to
pass this bill, and we need to pass it because even though it's cold,
it's going to get colder; and there are going to be people who don't
have any unemployment compensation benefits, and they can't pay their
heating bill. There are going to be people who want to send their kids
to college, and without the tax credits for college tuition, they won't
be able to pay the tuition.
And I said, Yeah, but, Mr. President, what about those people way up
at the top that are getting all of this money?
He said, Well, there might be an opportunity to reduce that.
And I'm looking forward to voting on the Pomeroy amendment so that we
can reduce some of that money that they're going to keep in their
pockets, put it into the Treasury so that we can help the poor people
in Chicago who are cold and don't have any heat.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
underlying tax bill and in opposition to the Pomeroy amendment that
would increase the death tax.
It is vital we do not stymie any economic recovery by failing to
extend current tax rates. If we fail to enact this legislation, in just
two short weeks, taxes will increase on every American.
Our country needs real economic growth, which can't happen if
Washington doesn't prevent these tax increases on farmers, ranchers,
and small businesses. The sooner we can provide
[[Page 22427]]
certainty to American businesses, the sooner they can get our economy
back on track and start hiring again.
In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of providing
certainty to farmers and ranchers in my district with a lower estate
tax rate indexed for inflation. Despite the rhetoric from some, these
folks aren't millionaires and billionaires. They want to simply leave
their children and grandchildren the land they use to grow and raise
food which feeds Americans and others around the world.
In the last year, the value of Nebraska farmland has increased by 9
percent, continuing a trend in which this land has doubled in value
over the past decade. Without an estate tax exemption indexed for
inflation, these farmers and ranchers will be forced to divide or sell
their land, threatening the very existence of farming traditions which,
in many cases, have been passed on for several generations.
Grieving families should never be forced to deal with the IRS during
a time of mourning. The prosperity earned by generations of Americans
should not be forfeited just because one life has reached its end.
I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Member from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, tonight I rise in support of middle class
Americans. As families and the Nation continue to face economic
challenges, we should extend tax cuts for Americans; yet the
Republicans insisted that tax cuts apply to all incomes, even
multimillionaires. And they are insisting, even tonight, on including
an additional tax break for just 6,600 wealthy estates at the expense
of tax relief for middle class Americans.
The goals of this tax relief package should be to help middle-income
Americans and promote economic growth. And because of the President and
Democrats in Congress, most of this bill accomplishes just that.
I commend the pro-growth business provisions, particularly the
acceleration of business depreciation and extension of the research and
development tax credits, which encourage innovation and investment. And
I strongly support the extension of tax breaks for middle class
families.
Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans' last-minute estate tax
provision does not meet the goal of either economic growth or tax
relief for the middle class. It is simply a bonus to the wealthiest few
that is not fair, not justifiable, and not fiscally responsible.
Instead, the estate tax proposal that we offer as a substitute saves
$25 billion. The House should vote for this proposal because it
promotes economic growth, extends tax cuts for all Americans, and
provides sensible estate tax relief for 99.75 percent of the Nation's
small businesses, families, and farms.
Vote for the tax cuts. Vote for fair estate tax policy. Vote for this
legislation, as amended.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
{time} 2110
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, our number one priority in Congress should be enacting
pro-growth policies that will put Americans back to work and get our
economy back on track.
Sadly, in the past 2 years, this body has done very little to
accommodate the record high unemployment that this country has faced.
And this tax bill before us today will give us an opportunity to
finally change that, because in just 2 weeks our country's small
businesses will see a huge job-killing tax increase imposed upon them.
Now, we all know small businesses have been the backbone of our
economy for a long period of years. They have served as our Nation's
top and chief job creators, generating nearly 7 out of every 10 new
jobs created. But according to the National Federation of Independent
Business, small business optimism is still at a recessionary level, and
only a net 4 percent of firms are even planning to create new jobs.
Stopping these tax increases on January 1 will add jobs to the economy.
On the other hand, imposing these job-killing tax increases on our
small businesses is only going to further delay an economic recovery
that has been denied to the American people. So we must act now to
prevent this from happening.
This bill also has a significant impact on our Nation's families.
Voting against this bill will lead to a nearly $100 tax increase on
every hardworking American family every single week. These are families
that are already struggling to make ends meet in tough economic times,
and increasing taxes on them is only going to make matters worse.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. Would I like to see these tax
rates made permanent? Yes. Would I like to see the spending provisions
and portions paid for? Yes. But well over 80 percent of this bill is
tax relief. It prevents income tax rates from increasing; it prevents
the alternative tax from hitting more middle-income families; it
preserves the child tax credit; and it prevents the marriage penalty
from being put in place.
Unless we act, on January 1 we will see job-killing taxes. But
tonight, and today, we will have an opportunity to support American
families and the small businesses that employ them.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I ask unanimous consent to control the time until the
gentleman from Michigan returns.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Driehaus). The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. I rise in opposition.
I am most concerned that this bill will undermine the very idea of
Social Security by taking money out of Social Security and promising to
make it whole with general revenues.
When FDR and others created Social Security in 1935, it was a
political master stroke. Social Security was created as an insurance
program and has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a
real sense of ownership for the program. FDR said Social Security
should not use general tax revenues.
This bill puts Social Security on the table with tax breaks for the
top 2 percent, with estate tax, alternative minimum tax, accelerated
depreciation, making it essentially another bargaining chip. If we
allow Social Security to become another bargaining chip for dealing
politicians, then it will not be long for this world.
In good economic times and bad, this sense of ownership that
Americans will get their due from Social Security has allowed it to
survive despite determined efforts by determined enemies.
We can find better ways to boost our economy that do not add billions
of dollars of debt to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few and do
not jeopardize Social Security.
It is with regret that I rise in opposition to this legislation. Less
than two weeks ago, I joined a majority of this House in passing middle
class tax relief that balanced the needs of working families with our
Nation's need to get its fiscal house in order. Unfortunately the
Senate failed to pass this bill.
The legislation we are considering today is deeply flawed. We should
try to put money in the pockets of working families, and I do not fault
President Obama and many of my colleagues who want to get something
done on behalf of the millions of Americans who need help. But, this is
the wrong way to do it.
Yet, at a time when income inequality in the United States has risen
to its highest level in decades, the bill under consideration would
shift the burden of funding the Federal government further onto middle-
class and working-class families. The bill would give away tax breaks
to the wealthiest two percent of households at a cost of more than $120
billion charged to the national debt.
I am most concerned, however, that the bill undermines the very idea
of Social Security. Social Security has been a pillar of our society
for generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and
others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political
masterstroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and
has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of
ownership for the program.
In good economic times and in bad, regardless of which political
party is in power, this sense of ownership--that Americans will get
[[Page 22428]]
out that which they put into the Social Security--has allowed it to
survive despite the efforts of determined enemies.
A provision in the bill would reduce an employee's contribution to
Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of salary. This could
have a beneficial stimulative economic effect. The $112 billion cost to
the Social Security trust fund of this payroll tax holiday is supposed
to be replaced with money from the general treasury fund. But that is
just the problem. In Social Security's history such a commingling of
payroll taxes and money from the Treasury at this scale is
unprecedented.
This is not just about the financial health of Social Security,
rather it is about Social Security's rationale that has worked well for
generations. This bill places Social Security on the table with tax
breaks for business expenses and tax breaks for the top two percent of
Americans--essentially making it just another bargaining chip. If we
allow Social Security to become a bargaining chip for dealing
politicians, then it will not be long for this world. As much as we
need economic stimulus now, we will need Social security for decades to
come. Rather than taking money from Social Security, I would support a
tax credit--similar to President Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit--
that would give working families a sizeable tax break with money from
general revenues.
In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR insisted that
Social Security should be self sustaining and that funds for the
payment of insurance benefits should not come from the process of
general taxation. FDR's message is as correct today as it was 75 years
ago.
To be sure, the legislation before us today contains many good
provisions that I would support on their own. The bill contains a one
year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. According to the
Labor Department, there are five job-seekers for every job opening in
the U.S. Extending unemployment is the right thing to do morally and
for the economy. The legislation would extend middle class tax relief
for two years along with many family-friendly tax breaks such as the
Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Alternative Minimum Tax
relief, and marriage penalty relief. The bill also would extend
expanded transportation benefits for commuters and tax credits like the
research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create
jobs.
Congress needs to provide unemployment insurance for Americans
searching for work, extend tax relief for working families, and find
solutions to our budget crisis. Yet these must not come at the expense
of Social Security. It is too important to lose.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed how my friends across
the aisle now, all of a sudden, have found religion when it comes to
fiscal issues.
But where were they when we had the $800 billion stimulus? Where were
they with the $1.2 trillion health care bill that they all promoted?
Where were they when the Speaker chose not to enact a budget resolution
this year, the first time in 36 years? And now they're preaching fiscal
responsibility when we are out promoting a bill that is not cutting
taxes; it is helping to ensure that every American citizen who pays
taxes won't be seeing an increase this year. It is truly, truly
amazing.
Simply put, this bill before us today will allow taxpayers to keep
more of what they earn and will allow small businesses, the engines of
our economy, to invest in themselves and invest in jobs. This bill will
provide much-needed certainty that businesses have been screaming for.
They are looking to invest in themselves and truly what they want to do
is hire more workers, but: tell us what the rules are going to be.
Currently, today, businesses are sitting on close to $2 trillion in
cash and liquid assets awaiting to know what the rules are going to be.
This bill is not perfect, but it will help set the stage for businesses
to get some confidence and certainty in this economy and go out and
start investing in U.S. workers. Congress is long overdue in providing
this certainty to small businesses, and it is one of the best ways that
we can start turning around this economy.
I ran a manufacturing business before coming to Congress. I know what
it feels like to look at a production line and not know if you will be
able to operate it the next month because Washington is dragging its
feet.
By acting now, we can also ensure that small businesses and family
farms aren't hit with a 55 percent death tax. We reaffirm our
commitment to providing incentives for manufacturers to invest in
research and development. And we help every American family by
extending current tax rates, the child tax credit, and the marriage
penalty relief.
Is this bill perfect? No. Few things are that come out of Washington.
But the bottom line is that this bill will allow families to keep more
of what they earn and help small businesses grow and invest in
themselves.
This is a proven recipe for job creation. I urge my colleagues to
support this bipartisan legislation so we can protect taxpayers and get
on to the tough work of cutting spending next year.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This bill is a bad deal for the middle class. If you work hard and
play by the rules, you should be rewarded; however, today's bill
ignores this. It lines the pockets of the mega-rich at the expense of
everyone else.
Our top priority right now should be job creation. We tried the tax
cuts proposed today for the last decade under the illusion that they
would create jobs. And so I ask, Where are the jobs? Where are the
jobs? This recession wasn't an act of nature; it was man-made. Shame on
us if we do the same thing again and expect different results.
I will continue to fight to strengthen the middle class, and I will
continue to fight to extend unemployment benefits for the millions who
are out of work through no fault of their own. I have voted in favor of
both in recent weeks. However, we should not support a giveaway to
millionaires and billionaires at the expense of future generations.
Mr. Chairman, this bill needs more jobs and less debt.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that have been talked
about here that I think need to be addressed. One that I want to
address point blank is this concept, this myth, that somehow preventing
a tax increase adds money to the deficit.
Only in Washington would some liberal politician think that allowing
somebody to keep money in their pockets and not have a tax increase
somehow adds to the deficit.
In fact, if you really want to see growth in this country, if you
really want to see more money coming into the Federal Government,
something that's always been proven is having lower tax rates coupled
with controlled spending. And that's the problem, that we don't have
those issues being addressed here today. Hopefully, we will address
that, and, I know in the new Republican Congress, we will address that
we should make these tax rates permanent, including a complete repeal
of the death tax, and you'll see some real growth in this country.
But there is a moral imperative here, too. There's been this talk
about class warfare on this House floor tonight, and a lot of people
running around talking about certain people that should have a tax
increase. And that is a moral imperative because who is the greedy one
here. Is it the single mother who is struggling to make ends meet right
now? Or is it the liberal Washington politician who is trying to saddle
her with another 50 percent increase in her tax rate if this bill
doesn't pass? Who is the greedy one? Is it the small business owner who
is struggling in tough economic times but maybe wants to create another
20 jobs in their small business? Or is it the liberal Washington
politician that is going to try to saddle them with thousands of
dollars in new taxes that will make it impossible for them to create
jobs? That's the moral imperative.
It's time for the liberal Washington politicians to get their hands
out of the pockets of the taxpayers and hardworking Americans in this
country so we can get some real job growth. I am
[[Page 22429]]
glad the gentleman from Michigan, when he becomes the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee next year, wants to address the long-term
problems. But in the short term, we need to prevent any American from
having their taxes raised, and that's what this debate is all about.
{time} 2120
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona who
spoke earlier. There is another important number in this bill, and that
number is $119 billion--$119 billion. You might ask why that number is
important. That is the amount of money that this bill will rob from the
Social Security trust fund if it is implemented, at a time when more
and more of our seniors rely on Social Security as their sole source of
income, at a time when more and more of our seniors are vulnerable and
are on fixed income and can't go out and get a second job, at a time
when more American workers are desperately needing Social Security
benefits because their defined benefit pensions have gone away, any
kind of pensions have gone away.
In spite of the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana who just
spoke, it is easy to forget that on most of these issues, Democrats and
Republicans agreed. We agreed that 98 percent of Americans needed a tax
break continued. We are fighting about that 2 percent. That is where
the argument is. We are arguing about people who have $10 million in an
estate. In a windfall to them, should they pay taxes?
It is interesting that in this bill, those people have been
protected, but the folks who are on Social Security and the solvency of
the Social Security trust fund is fair game. Vote ``no'' on this
measure.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, there's not much time when there's 3 hours
and most of that is dedicated to pushing this bill. But the fact is,
following up on Social Security tax, it's reduced by 2 percent, from
6.2 percent, for 2 years, which dramatically does affect the solvency
of Social Security.
When I proposed the payroll tax holiday, I was going to pay for
that--it's in the bill--pay for it with TARP. We were going to take
that money from the Wall Street bailout and give it to the people that
actually earned it. That would have worked. This isn't paid for.
We were elected into the majority to stop the deficit spending. We do
need to extend the current tax rates so that we can give some stability
to this economy. But two years, analysts say, is not going to push
businessmen to run out and fix the economy.
This is a mistake. We can do much better for the economy. This is no
time to sell out just to get some extensions. We can do better.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, in 2006, Warren Buffett wrote,
``There's class warfare, but it's my class, the rich, that's making
war, and we're winning.'' Today, in this bill, Mr. Buffett's sentiment
rings as startlingly true today as it did 4 years ago.
I rise in strong opposition to this bill that will benefit only the
wealthiest Americans at the expense of putting billions of dollars in
debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
Over the last 35 years, our tax policies have concentrated a third of
this Nation's wealth in 1 percent of our population, leaving 80 percent
of us with 16 percent of our Nation's wealth, the rest. The proposal on
the floor today only exacerbates that trend.
Mr. Chairman, we have staked our reputation and the legacy of this
111th Congress on fighting for working families. I just don't
understand how we can saddle those same families with unsustainable tax
cuts for the wealthy, an estate tax that benefits 6,600 families, and a
payroll tax that without question raids Social Security.
If this is war, then let's put away this white flag. I refuse to
surrender to those who want to benefit the two-percenters at the
expense of the rest of us. To do that would surrender the hopes, the
dreams, the retirements, and the paychecks of families all across this
country.
It is time to put away the white flag and fight for working families.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time
remaining on both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas controls 35 minutes; the
gentleman from Michigan controls 52\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished
Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
strong opposition to this reckless legislation. There is no question
that I strongly support some of the items in this bill. Unemployed
Americans desperately need their benefits extended, and I proudly have
voted to do so every time I have had the chance. This bill also
contains tax cuts for hard-working American families, tax cuts I voted
for 2 weeks ago on this very floor.
But this bill holds these good policies hostage to a giant handout to
those who need help the least. It is political bullying at its very
worst, an affront to working American families waged by Republicans
whose irresponsible decisions got us into this mess in the first place.
This bill contains a radical change to the inheritance tax that will
concentrate wealth and power in even fewer hands than it is now. In a
country that prides itself on being a meritocracy, not an aristocracy,
such a giveaway is irrational. It completely neuters our ability to
invest in people and infrastructure.
This bill contains tax breaks for those who will make more than
$250,000 a year, breaks that our country can ill-afford when teachers
are being laid off and libraries are being closed, when those who have
been unemployed for the longest are losing their safety net, and young
men and women are still being asked to serve and die in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The payroll tax cut is another bad idea. Not only does it make Social
Security less secure, many public servants, including California
teachers, won't see any tax cut at all.
Overall, this bill adds nearly $1 trillion to the deficit, while
doing very, very little to create jobs, spur economic growth, or invest
in America's future.
Because I am committed to creating jobs, making retirement secure,
and investing in this country, I cannot in good conscience support this
bill. Compromise is one thing, surrender is another, and I will not
surrender in my fight to ensure that America remains the land of
opportunity for all.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill because it
strikes the right balance between support for the unemployed and those
who continue to suffer in the economic downturn, the continuation of
pro-American and pro-family economic policies, and providing the much
needed certainty for American job creators to make the long-term
strategic decisions necessary to help grow our economy.
Now is not the time to raise taxes for anyone in America. One of the
key factors that has stalled our economic recovery is the uncertainty
about the regulatory environment and tax rates that small businesses
will face in the coming years. With passage of this legislation, we can
provide the certainty these businesses have sought, enabling them to
finally be able to make the long-term strategic and hiring decisions
that they were reluctant to do before they knew what the playing field
would look like.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation
compromise that will help kick-start our economy.
[[Page 22430]]
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Let me first correct the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert, when he says that this bill would make the Social Security
trust fund less solvent. Every penny that the Social Security trust
fund doesn't receive from payroll taxes it gets from the general fund.
But let me especially correct him when he says, oh, the other way to
pay for this is by canceling the TARP bill. We canceled the TARP bill
six months, seven months ago. He voted against the bill, but that bill
passed, was enacted, and returned $225 billion to the Treasury. Having
done that once, we can't make money by just doing it again.
The Republican Senators held this country hostage, they held the
middle class tax cuts hostage, they held the American economy hostage.
President Obama agreed to pay the ransom. Now the question before this
House is, do we block that ransom payment?
{time} 2130
The problem is that if we do not make the ransom payment this month,
President Obama will be willing to pay just a little bit more next
month. So today we will do what we have to do.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. For many Americans, tonight their urgent priority is to
find a job. It should be our urgent priority to create those jobs for
those Americans. I support this imperfect bill because I believe it
will help create those jobs. I think a tax cut of $1,000 a year for a
family making $50,000 will help spur spending. I think that not raising
taxes on people who sell real estate or teach school or drive a school
bus is the right thing to do.
I think that some degree of tax certainty for business people and
investors over the next 2 years will help to spur investment. And I
know that every penny that people receive in an unemployment check will
be spent as soon as possible--because people have to. And that helps
spur the economy as well. And I also hope that the bipartisan agreement
tonight to do the easy thing, which is reduce people's taxes, will be
followed by a bipartisan agreement to do the hard thing--and that's
reduce spending in a way that is sensible, equitable, fair, and
necessary. This is not a perfect agreement, but it's a necessary one.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) who has been a leader on lowering taxes,
fighting the expansion of government, and expanding liberty.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, as we contemplate the tax agreement before us, I urge
my colleagues to put politics aside and focus on the facts. We are
crawling out of the worst economic downturn in generations. Working
families and businesses remain gripped by economic uncertainty, and to
this day Washington has only made the problem worse. If we want to cut
into the 9.8 percent unemployment rate, Mr. Chairman, we have to
instill confidence in the economy and begin to foster an environment
for job creation. Today, we take our first step toward achieving that
goal.
This tax deal is not perfect. And nearly all of us, myself included,
disagree with certain elements of this bill. But let us not forget what
we're fighting for. The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that on January 1,
one of two things is going to happen to all taxpayers and most small
businesses: Their tax rates are either going to go up, or they'll stay
the same. The choice is to act now or impose the onset of a $3.8
trillion tax increase that will crush the fragile recovery and cost
tens of thousands of jobs nationally. This is an indisputable fact--and
an unacceptable result.
Mr. Chairman, this tax increase would punish families and small
businesses that cannot afford to pay it. Middle class families will see
their taxes go up by $100 per week. Let me be clear. There's only one
path out of this economic crisis--and it's economic growth. But by
transferring vast sums of cash out of the private sector and into
Washington, Congress would be taking a club to investment,
entrepreneurship, and innovation--the very building blocks of what we
need to foster economic growth and job creation. About 84 percent of
this package, Mr. Chairman, is either tax relief or extension of
current tax rates. So, while not perfect, this is the kind of action
that most Americans voted for last November.
In addition to preserving all marginal tax rates, it would kill the
Making Work Pay credit and replace it with a payroll tax credit for all
workers. It would deal with the alternative minimum tax that would
begin to hit individuals making well below $100,000, and would head off
a punishing increase in the death tax.
Mr. Chairman, we could try to hold out and pass a different tax bill.
But there's no reason to believe that the Senate will pass it or the
President would sign it if this fight spills into next year. Meanwhile,
Mr. Chairman, the uncertainty associated with a prolonged debate would
cause grave economic harm and possibly send us back into a double-dip
recession.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this current
legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we're voting on a tax package that gives away $139
billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans over the
next 2 years in exchange for $57 billion in unemployment compensation
benefits for the next 13 months. The math just doesn't add up.
Many Members are opposed to this bill because it's bad economic
policy. But it's also morally wrong. Last Friday, the Congressional
Black Caucus, led by Congressman Bobby Scott, a member of the Budget
Committee, proposed a fair deal by eliminating the tax giveaway to the
richest in our country and by extending the middle-income tax cuts,
unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Build
America Bonds, affordable housing provisions, and the earned income and
child care tax credit. Our proposal would also protect Social Security
by offering a tax rebate instead of a payroll tax holiday to ensure
that Social Security is not cut in the future, and it would create the
same amount of jobs at half the cost.
We should let the Bush tax break for the rich expire. Period.
Extending them for another 2 years digs us deeper into this deficit
hole--and we know who will end up paying for it. It won't be the rich.
It will be the poor, low-income communities, and communities of color,
who lack well-paid lobbyists to look out for their interests here on
Capitol Hill. I am reminded also of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
called to our attention: ``A bad check such as the one being written
today will come back marked `insufficient funds.'''
Instead of stuffing the stockings of the super rich, we need to
stimulate direct job creation and economic recovery efforts. And we
should not leave the chronically unemployed, those who have exhausted
their 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, out of this deal. They
should not be left out in the cold due to insufficient funds.
We should not allow the other side of the aisle to shove these tax
breaks for the super rich down our throats in exchange for middle-
income tax breaks. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said yesterday
in opposition to this bill, ``Working families must not continue to
bear the cost of unnecessary giveaways to the wealthiest,'' due to
insufficient funds.
Congressional Black Caucus Alternative to the President's Compromise
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are
overwhelmingly opposed to the President's compromise with
Republicans on
[[Page 22431]]
extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years. While
we are an ideologically diverse Caucus, the CBC has reached a
consensus that we cannot support extending the Bush-era tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans; we can support moving
forward on the following:
A 13-month extension of Emergency Unemployment Insurance
Benefits plus additional assistance for the chronically
unemployed--those Americans who have been unable to find work
for more than 99 weeks.
A payroll tax holiday or equivalent payment, such as a tax
rebate check, with guarantees that Social Security will not
be deprived of revenue.
Targeted tax relief through a 2-year extension of the Bush-
era tax cuts for hardworking middle- and low-income families
and extending the enhanced provisions included in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Earned Income
Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the American
Opportunity Tax Credit.
The CBC proposal will cost less than half of the
President's proposed trillion dollar compromise.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are keenly aware
of the day-to-day struggles of hardworking American families
and the unemployed. In the long-run, we believe permanently
extending the Bush-era tax cuts will add trillions of dollars
to our national debt thus jeopardizing the fiscal solvency of
the United States Government.
This nation has difficult decisions to make in the years
ahead and the CBC believes that vital programs, such as
public education funding, financial aid for students to go to
college, child nutrition programs, Veterans benefits, Social
Security and Medicare, will all be put at risk if we
permanently extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts. We believe
the benefits of these vital programs to all Americans,
especially to middle- and low-income Americans, far outweigh
any tax cut.
It will take strong political will to make the tough
choices necessary to bring our fiscal house in order. One
such choice the Caucus made was to consider and reject
support for the proposed reduction in the estate tax, which
has a two year price tag of $60 billion and only benefits the
wealthiest 2% of American families. Rejecting that choice is
particularly timely in light of the recent defeat of a $250
payment to struggling Social Security recipients who are
going another year without a Cost-of-Living-Adjustment. As we
move ahead on ways to accelerate our economic recovery and
balance our budget, the CBC stands ready to assist the
President in a meaningful and responsible way.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I do rise in support of this legislation. Obviously, it's
not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. And we have heard all the
policy and political arguments against this bill. Let me just be very
clear. It's really time to stop this $3.8 trillion tax increase that
awaits the American people. It's time to take ``yes'' for an answer.
It's really time to get on board. If this bill fails, taxes go up on
American savings, investments, income, estates, small businesses. We
know what is coming. We know what is awaiting the American people.
As it relates to the estate tax, just think about that one moment.
After January 1, we know people will die. And if this law is not
enacted, this bill is not enacted, we know what will happen. Lifetimes
of hard work, sacrifice, and thrift will be punished, and this Federal
Government will confiscate money from people at 55 percent who have
less than $5 million in assets. It's terribly unfair to family farms
and family businesses.
Let's be clear. If you're voting ``no,'' you're voting to raise
taxes. Again, if you're voting ``no,'' you're voting to raise taxes by
$3.8 trillion. If you're voting ``yes,'' you're voting to stop a $3.8
trillion tax increase. This is the vote that counts. The political
games are over. No more posturing. The train is pulling out of the
station. It's time to get on board. Vote ``yes.'' Stop the tax
increase.
{time} 2140
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tonight, by extending the Bush-era tax cuts, the greedy will prevail,
and the needy will fail to receive desperately needed social services
going forward. Even the so-called middle class Bush-era tax cuts will
deliver six times the benefit to the wealthy than to ordinary
hardworking families.
How many times do we have to hear Republicans boldly declare, We will
starve the beast and deny the least social welfare?
Frankly, this $1 trillion tax cutting and Social Security gutting
feeds right into the 75-year Republican sentiment to eliminate
entitlements: $1 trillion debt and goodbye Social Security net. Lure
them with short-term gain and usher in long-term pain.
Colleagues, beware. Tonight begins the undermining of Social Security
and Medicare.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill that ensures
that taxes will rise on no one in America on New Year's Day, 15 days
from now. What a terrible New Year's present that would be to the
American people.
This bill creates greater certainty in the business community so that
businesses across America can create the jobs this country so
desperately needs, especially given our current 9.8 unemployment rate.
New jobs will lower our annual deficits. Almost 85 percent of this bill
provides tax relief, including preventing the job-killing tax hikes;
enacting the AMT patch--extremely important to the district I serve and
to New Jersey as a whole; and reducing the Federal estate tax from the
scheduled 55 percent rate on January 1 down to 35 percent--also
extremely important to New Jersey where residential real estate is so
expensive.
This bill has been endorsed by leading conservatives, including our
new reform Governor in New Jersey, Chris Christie. It will give us time
in the new Congress to enact fundamental reform, including deficit
reduction, a permanent extension of existing tax rates, and the
elimination of the Federal estate tax.
Mr. LEVIN. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each
side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan controls 46\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Texas controls 28\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition to the bill because its passage will make it
impossible to ever balance the Federal budget.
This compromise will add about $900 billion to the national debt.
That's more than TARP. That's more than the stimulus package. The 2-
year cost of the bill is about the same as the 10-year cost of the
health care reform bill. At least we paid for that.
We need to make tough, unpopular choices to balance the budget.
Obviously, letting tax cuts expire would be unpopular. But when we ever
decide to get serious about the deficit, we will find that the
alternatives are even more unpopular because, after today's vote, the
choices will necessarily include cuts in Social Security, Medicare,
education, and other popular programs.
If we don't have the political will to end the disastrous Bush-era
tax cuts now, we certainly won't have that political will during the
middle of a Presidential election. The job creation in this bill is
paltry--$400,000 a job. We can do better than that.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to make the tough
choice and defeat this bill.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
For more than 200 years, America has worked hard to earn a reputation
around the world that, when the going gets tough, America gets going.
We could lead in tough times. We could withstand adversity. We were
prepared to sacrifice. Then, as our country matured, we were prepared,
not only to do all those tough things, but to do them the right way,
and we
[[Page 22432]]
were able to somehow figure out where the sweet spot was for prosperity
in America--building the middle class: the GI Bill for our troops,
Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, the best universities for
our kids. As we invested in the middle class, our prosperity bloomed.
Fast-forward to the Bush recession and to the tough times we find
ourselves in today. Americans are hanging tough, fighting to hold onto
their jobs and their homes. But is everyone in America sharing in the
sacrifice? This proposal gives millionaires $139,000 in tax breaks each
year. On top of that, it gives the 6,600 wealthiest Americans a tax
break equal to $23 billion.
Perhaps the most sinister provision in this proposal is the more than
$100 billion that it diverts from the Social Security trust fund and
then borrows money from places like China to replace those dollars.
Everyone in America is ready to sacrifice. Everyone in America should
be ready to sacrifice. This bill doesn't ask all Americans to
sacrifice. The day should come, as the days have come, when all of us
are prepared to sacrifice. This is not the bill. This is not the time
to change America's history. Let us all work together, to pull
together, to let everyone in the world know that we are prepared to
sacrifice. America's wealthy are ready to sacrifice as all Americans
who are trying to hold onto their jobs and their homes are prepared to
sacrifice.
Let's do this together. We have that reputation. We know how to do
it. Adversity doesn't concern us. We will do it the right way. Let us
pull together. We can do much better than this bill. It is our chance
to prove it to America.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another active, distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me state that there is much in this bill that
concerns me.
Specifically at a time when our budget deficits and national debt
continue to hold back our economic growth, we should not be passing
bonus tax breaks for the wealthiest few in this country and handing the
bill to our children and our grandchildren. I also strongly prefer the
House-passed language that provides estate tax relief in a responsible
manner. Additionally, I worry that the payroll tax provisions, while
good for working families in the short run, could undermine the
finances of Social Security over the long run.
But, at a time when so many people face uncertainty in a fragile
economy, doing nothing is not a very good option.
For far too long in this town, shortsighted partisanship has
prevailed against the long-term best interests of our country. We need
more bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., to tackle our Nation's most
pressing problems.
I commend the President for getting us beyond the partisan stalemate
and for laying the groundwork for economic progress for the American
people.
There are many provisions in this bill that are going to help working
families. I strongly support the middle class tax cuts, or at least to
keep them going, in this bill. Child tax credits, marriage penalty
relief, and education incentives will help middle class families make
ends meet and invest for a brighter, more secure economic future.
Most urgently, Congress needs to pass the extension of unemployment
benefits contained in this legislation. In my home State of North
Carolina, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in the recession
caused by the misguided policies of the previous administration. I have
met with many, many of these people and have looked them in the eyes as
they have told me their stories. These are good people who have worked
hard and who have played by the rules. They are depending on these
unemployment benefits to get them through these tough times until the
economy picks back up and creates good jobs. We are here the week
before Christmas, and the last thing we should do is cut off their
lifeline.
I will vote to pass this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
doing so.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
What we are about to do here today is extraordinary, and the impact
will be felt by our kids and grandkids for the next 30 years. With one
vote, we are going to increase the already projected record deficit for
this year of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion.
{time} 2150
Every penny of income forgone here tonight will be borrowed, much of
it from China and some of it from our Social Security trust fund, for
the first time in our history. For what? For continuing the failed
economic policies of the last 9 years? We've got these tax cuts in
place today. How many jobs are they creating? But you tell me we can't
afford to invest, we can't rebuild our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure, we don't have the money to do that. We know we can
create real jobs there. We can increase the productivity of our Nation.
We can compete better worldwide if we invest in our infrastructure and
our education system and our people.
But no, we're going to have debt-financed, consumption-driven
recovery as people buy goods made in China and, of course, the $112
billion taken out of Social Security. And the Republicans have made it
painfully clear tonight that the temporary cut in Social Security
income is not temporary. They've said it time and time and time again.
There is no such thing as a temporary tax cut.
I hope the White House is listening. They're about to spring the
trap, and next year, they will say, Mr. President, you're going to
raise taxes on every working American by making Social Security whole.
You can't do that. Oh, and by the way, we're tired of subsidizing that
program with money we're borrowing.
That is a horrible, horrible step for this Congress to take.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yielding myself 30 seconds, I would point out,
our Democrat friends have run the first and second highest deficits in
American history the last 2 years. They have raised taxes this session
$625 billion, and guess how much went to reduce the deficit? Not one
dime. In fact, all that money was sent in twice. No one seriously
believes Democrats will use tax increases to lower the debt, but to
expand and grow this government.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise with deep concerns over the
temporary payroll tax cut included in the package before us tonight,
not because we shouldn't provide relief to the middle class. We must,
tonight. Cutting Social Security contributions could have lasting
consequences, however, for our Nation's most successful domestic
program.
In a year, in this very Chamber, many of our colleagues across the
aisle will likely work to make this tax holiday permanent, just as they
are tonight for the Bush tax cuts. Jeopardizing Social Security's
independent revenue stream will open retirement benefits to budgetary
attacks for the first time and pave the way for attempts to privatize
Social Security.
We could give middle class Americans tax relief without threatening
Social Security in this way. The unfortunate truth is we will not
accomplish that here tonight, even as we do provide struggling working
families and jobless Americans with a lifeline that they desperately
need.
But we must commit ourselves tonight to the fight that lies ahead. We
must be ready to protect Social Security and defend our seniors and
working Americans from the attacks that are sure to come.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 22433]]
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Etched on the stones in the FDR Memorial are his words
that are applicable tonight. He said: The test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is
whether we provide enough for those who have little. President
Roosevelt.
On December 2, the Democrats in this House honored those words. We
passed a middle class tax cut, and we passed unemployment insurance,
and we provided for those who have little. Tonight, because of the
ransom that's been demanded by our Republican colleagues, we're left
with a different option. We're left with the option of providing
abundance to those who already have much, $130 billion, every dollar
borrowed probably from China. Is that fiscally responsible? I think
not.
And furthermore, President Roosevelt, we are, in this bill, about to
destroy your greatest heritage, the Social Security system. The
Republicans are opening the door to the destruction of the Social
Security system and thereby carrying out their 74-year task.
It cannot happen. We provided an alternative and we must not let that
happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the active Member
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR. Our country is going bankrupt. On May 9, 2001, Mr. Camp,
our Nation was $5.643 trillion in debt with a 4.3 unemployment rate.
Guys like you came to the floor and said let's pass the Bush tax cuts.
They did. I didn't vote for it. Eight years later when the President
left office, our debt had increased by $4,983,609,000,000, and the
unemployment rate had gone up to 7.7 percent.
The argument that somehow these tax cuts are going to magically put
people to work is bunk. Since the Bush tax cuts, we are now
$8,204,749,000,000 deeper in debt, and the unemployment rate is a
shocking 9.8 percent. How much is enough? How much debt is enough? How
many more bills are we going to stick on my kids and my grandkids so
that you and others can get reelected?
It is time to draw the line, Mr. Camp. I do believe in a balanced
budget, and I would beg my colleagues, I would beg my colleagues, to
defeat this measure.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Schiff). Members should direct their remarks to
the Chair.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this so-called tax
compromise because it represents a windfall for the wealthy, a windfall
that will result in one thing and one thing only: insufficient funds
for all other social programs.
By holding assistance for the unemployed hostage and giving tax
breaks to the billionaires, tax breaks actually that create absolutely
no jobs, we will create a big hole, a big hole in all of the support
that we need for our children, for women, for veterans, for our
education and health programs, and that only names a few, Mr. Chairman.
Rather than tax breaks for the wealthy, we need policies that create
jobs, jobs that will help our working families.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed tax package
because it will yield only one thing, and that is insufficient funds
for any of the social programs we need in our country.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we send this bill
back to the drawing board, work with the President, so that we can
really help the unemployed, the 99ers, and not just grow the deficit.
Where are the good Samaritans?
We have voted over and over for tax cuts. I believe in them. The
House voted for tax cuts 2 weeks ago, but this tax bill is a budget
buster and just growing the deficit, the same deficit that we're going
to be called upon to do something about.
I want America to thrive. So they cannot be giving tax cuts to
billionaires who do not want them. We cannot cut into the Social
Security, costing us $120 billion and impacting firefighters, teachers,
and police who do not get a benefit from the payroll tax holiday. I
want middle class tax cuts, but I want the Republicans to stop holding
us hostage for hardworking Americans to get a dime from this country.
They work hard.
I offered an amendment to ensure that the corporations that are
getting the tax cuts really do save a job or hire the people who are
unemployed. With billions being spent and trillions in the deficit, it
is time now to work for middle class Americans.
Mr. Chair, I have deep reservations with portions of this bill,
especially as it relates to the estate tax and tax cuts for the
wealthiest 2% of Americans. Nevertheless, I do support portions of H.R.
4853, to extend vital tax cuts for America's middle and working class
and extending unemployment insurance benefits that will otherwise
expire at the end of this month. I have consistently supported and
voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two weeks ago when I voted
for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of
unemployment benefits.
I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle
income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans
that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of
Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large
deficit. I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic,
hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great State
of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and
small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the
skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation,
and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits
set to expire at the end of this month. The American people are asking
the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive
action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I
am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding unemployment
benefits and tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in
order to benefit the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
I also have some serious concerns that the temporary payroll tax cut
included in this legislation could jeopardize Social Security. Although
this is a temporary tax cut, there will inevitably be debate in the
future about extending it before its expiration, which could create
substantial shortfalls in Social Security's long term viability. Future
extensions of this payroll tax at the expense of Social Security could
force hard-earned retirement benefits to compete with other government
programs for funding rather than remaining self-sufficient. Tax cuts
must be instituted without compromising Social Security.
I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership,
support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for
middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers
during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all
the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this
essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all
that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward
fiscally responsible economic recovery.
I support those provisions of H.R. 4853 as amended by Senate
Amendment 4753 that provide necessary tax relief to struggling middle
income Americans. Under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization and Job Creation Act, Senate Amendment 4753, middle-
class families and small businesses will see their taxes go down. This
measure contains job-creating tax incentives, including incentives to
create clean energy jobs, energy-efficient homes, and investments in
renewable energy. It also ensures that millions of Americans still
looking for work continue to have access to an emergency safety net to
afford basic necessities, without extending the amount of time these
benefits can be claimed for any given household.
The specific ways that this bill will benefit middle-class families
and aid the economic recovery include the following:
It preserves the current income tax rate for middle-class families (2
years).
[[Page 22434]]
It reauthorizes the current emergency unemployment insurance program
(13 months, or through the end of 2011).
It continues vital middle-class tax credits, including the American
Opportunity Tax Credit to help families pay for college, the Child Tax
Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (two years).
It helps businesses by allowing them to deduct 100 percent of certain
investments in 2011 and 50 percent in 2012.
It extends the state and local sales tax deduction, which is
particularly important for states, like Texas, which have no state
income tax (2 years).
It extends Alternative Minimum Tax relief through 2011 (2 years).
I have already voted for all of the above benefits.
Unlike those provisions of H.R. 4853 which benefit America's
struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this
legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon the
unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive
giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a two-year extension
of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans while lowering
their estate tax rate to 35% on estates valued at more than $5 million
for individuals and more than $10 million for couples. These giveaways
to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly
add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value
for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job
creation and preservation.
I offered an amendment that would require all large businesses and
corporations who received a tax benefit under this legislation to
report how their tax savings are being used to create or save jobs. Tax
cuts for America's largest corporations must be tied to job creation or
preservation, which is why I offered my amendment. Failing to tie tax
cuts to job creation is irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing
deficit without bolstering job creation.
I would like to add my support for the Amendment to H.R. 4853
introduced by my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota. This amendment
would strike Title III of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4583 and amend
the bill to provide two years of estate tax relief at 2009 levels. In
calendar years 2011 and 2012, the estate tax exemption amount would be
$3.5 million ($7 million total for a married couple) and the maximum
tax rate on estates would be 45%. Additionally, the amendment would
provide estates from decedents in 2010 with the ability to elect to be
treated under the 2009 levels or to be treated under current law for
tax purposes. This election will allow estates to receive a step up in
basis on inherited property rather than the 2010 carryover basis rules.
The exemption level and rate are consistent with the estate tax
proposal included in the President's FY2010 and FY2011 budgets.
While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 4853 that amount to an
expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, I want to
emphasize that I fully support President Obama's vision for change. I
share his commitment to fighting for low and middle-income Americans
who are the backbone of this country and our economy. However, this
legislation, especially as it pertains to tax cuts for the top 2% of
Americans and estate tax provisions that are regressive and inflate the
deficit, does not comport with this vision. I have serious misgivings
about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of
our deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted towards job
creation.
I strongly support the tax and unemployment insurance relief that
H.R. 4853 provides to middle-income families, small businesses and
farmers. But, my friends, I must express my concern that this
legislation does not provide extension of unemployment benefits for
those unfortunate unemployed Americans who have run up against a brick
wall. These so-called ``99ers'' have been sincerely looking for work
for a very long time and have run out of resources to provide for their
families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills and buy food. They
simply want and need a job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 4853
proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to
provide for the so-called ``99ers.''
{time} 2200
Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are willing
to support this Congress borrowing money, but only if all of that
effort is targeted at creating jobs. This bill fails that test. We're
going to borrow almost $900 billion under this bill in order to give
$140,000 in tax cuts to somebody that makes $1 million. We're going to
reduce the estate tax so that only 3,500 families in the entire country
pay it next year.
Tax cuts for billionaires don't create jobs. Sure, there are
important provisions in this bill that do help the most needy, like
extending tax cuts to the middle class and unemployment benefits to
those that are out of work. But these benefits are going to be greatly
outweighed by the crushing debt that those same families will have to
carry and the cuts to education and to health care and to Social
Security that will inevitably be passed in order to finance those same
tax cuts.
My constituents want a bill that is 100 percent focused on jobs.
Unfortunately in this bill, 20 percent of the money goes to almost only
1 percent of Americans. It's not a deal to create jobs. It's not a deal
that we can afford.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, tonight we find ourselves faced with a
very important decision with regard to what sort of taxes we face in
the coming years. We are not simply voting on whether to ``keep tax
cuts.'' We are voting on whether or not we ``raise taxes.'' To let our
current tax law expire is to raise taxes on Americans.
Some say that the tax cuts will cost the government $700 billion.
Well, I say that allowing the current tax cuts to expire will cost
taxpayers $700 billion. Who needs that money the most, our government
or the people? If this bill fails and taxes go up in the middle of a
very fragile economy, we risk any potential job growth and recovery
from this great recession. Refusing to take more of taxpayers' money is
not spending we wish we could afford. Taking taxpayers' money is
spending the taxpayer cannot afford.
Mr. Chairman, I contend that we cannot punish taxpayers with a
massive tax increase to pay for the massive spending problem in
Washington. Let's let Americans keep more of their money, and let's
start cutting spending and be responsible with the money that they have
entrusted us with.
Should we increase taxes to bring more money into the government so
that we can pay for the spending that's happened over the last several
years? I say no. The message we need to be sending to the citizens of
our great Nation is this, that we get it. We are not going to live
beyond our means and ask you to foot the bill. We are going to cut
spending, eliminate waste, and reduce our national debt responsibly.
Let Americans keep their money and see what happens to the economy. Let
Americans keep their money and see what happens to the unemployment
rate. Let Americans keep their money because it's the responsible thing
to do.
Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Obama tax
bill.
I strongly support middle class tax cuts. I strongly support
extending unemployment benefits to Oregon families who are still
struggling to find jobs. However, this bill is not balanced. The bill
extends tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for 2 years. Yet
unemployment insurance is extended for only 1 year. Why are we
providing tax cuts to the very wealthy while literally leaving
unemployed Americans out in the cold?
Further, this bill is fiscally irresponsible and, as a result, bad
for jobs and bad for our economy. The bill costs over $800 billion over
the next 10 years. The bond markets are already reacting to this,
interest rates are going up, and this will squelch what anemic job
growth we do have.
We should defeat this bill, restore fairness and balance between
those who have the most and those who have the least, and cut the cost
in length of this tax giveaway to millionaires so that interest rates
rise less and job growth can continue. Please defeat this legislation.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the
time until the gentleman from Michigan returns.
[[Page 22435]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. YARMUTH. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, when families around the country try to deal with their
budgetary issues and there are limited resources available, what they
do is, they say, Well, we may have to borrow money; but if we're
borrowing money, we're going to borrow it for survival--meaning
necessities--or we're going to borrow it to make an investment that
will pay off over time.
There are many things in this package that represent those two
standards. Unemployment benefits represent necessities. Those are
things our citizens need to survive for them and their families, and
there are business tax credits in these bills that represent
investments that will create jobs and stimulate economic activity. All
of those are good things.
On the other hand, there are expenditures in this bill that don't
meet either of those standards. These are the expenditures that give
over $100 billion to the wealthiest citizens in this country, the ones
whose net worth has dramatically increased over the last decade, who
now, 1 percent of this country, control a vast majority of the wealth
of this country. They have done extremely well. To give them more money
when we're borrowing it is not the kind of priority we need to set. It
does not represent an investment in jobs or in stimulative activity,
and it does not represent necessities. These are bonuses to people who
don't need them.
There are lots of good things in this bill. Unfortunately, the price
for getting them is much too high. This is like going to the hospital
when you're very sick, and the doctor says, You know, I'm going to give
you $250,000 of care that's going to be really effective for you. It's
going to make you well. Unfortunately, you're going to have to eat
$100,000 worth of candy which will do nothing for you. This is the
price that we are being asked to pay by Republicans in the Senate for
the many good things in this bill. Always, government is about choices.
Governing is always about choices and priorities. This is the wrong set
of priorities for this country.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And, Mr. Chairman, I had not originally thought I would come here to
speak. I must admit, I have been watching the debate in my office and
have some amount of envy for my colleagues who bring such passion and
certainty of their vote as they come to the floor.
As I look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, I must
admit I consider it to be a very successful negotiation because I am
not sure I have heard anybody who really likes the bill. Perhaps that's
a hallmark of a successful negotiation. As I look at the legislation,
it is the classic challenge of, Is the glass half full or is it half
empty? I, for one, have decided it to be half full.
Mr. Chairman, clearly there are items in this legislation that I find
not just empty but, frankly, atrocious. Yes, there is tax pork in this
legislation. There is an unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits.
Mr. Chairman, at some point, I would hope the majority--soon to be
minority in this institution--would realize that we have got to
concentrate on the paychecks. Americans want paychecks, not
unemployment checks. And if we're going to have them, they need to be
paid for. And worst of all, what's happening to Social Security, with
the payroll tax without putting any fundamental reform on the table.
And what I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, It
is you who brought that to the table.
Mr. Chairman, I made a pledge to my constituents. I told them I would
fight any tax increases. I told them I would try to bring certainty to
this economy because that is what businesses need. Trillions of dollars
sitting on the sidelines, waiting to come into this economy; but yet
the party who has been in control of Congress for 4 years, had the
White House for 2 years waits until almost Christmas Eve, and we still
don't know what tax rates are. There's no certainty.
{time} 2210
The only thing I am certain of is that if we don't pass this
legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the
American people, on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on
small businesses, on job creators, and, yes, even the vilified wealthy.
Mr. Chairman, we've heard the class warfare rhetoric for quite some
time now; and look what it's got us, almost serial double digit
unemployment and human suffering.
Mr. Chairman, I've held a lot of jobs in my life. I used to bus
tables at the Holiday Inn in College Station, Texas. I used to work on
a loading dock and load windows. I used to clean out chicken houses,
which to some extent was sufficient training for the present
occupation, but that's a subject for a different time.
But, you know what, Mr. Chairman? In all these jobs I've held, no
poor person ever hired me. It was somebody who went out and risked
capital and took a chance and built something. And yet the left and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person,
that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create jobs so
that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on their table,
send their kids to college. I don't get it.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say well, this will
add to the deficit. Well, why didn't I hear that argument during the
$1.2 trillion failed stimulus? I didn't hear the great angst and
anxiety from my friends on the other side of the aisle at that point
when we passed an almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. I really
didn't hear it.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. I didn't, Mr. Chairman, hear this angst and anxiety
when my friends on the other side of the aisle not only brought us the
first trillion dollar deficit in America's history, but backed it up
with the second trillion dollar deficit in American history. I didn't
hear all this concern. I only hear it now when we're talking about
letting the American people keep what they earn.
We're not even talking about a tax cut here. We're talking about
preventing a tax increase. So I don't quite understand all of a sudden
this great angst and concern about the deficit.
And I might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit which is
the symptom. It is spending which is the disease. We can clearly get
rid of the deficit tonight. Let's increase taxes 60 percent, 60 percent
on all Americans. Let's more than double taxes on our children and
destroy the American Dream. Sure, we can balance the budget. That
doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity.
And so to avoid a further job meltdown--and let me make it very
clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not any great economic growth package that
is put before us. I don't believe that this is going to be the
cornucopia of jobs. What we're trying to do here is avoid further
damage to a crippled economy that, again, has almost double-digit
unemployment on a serial basis. I wish we had at least 10 years of
certainty of these tax rates. I'm sorry it's only two.
I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle who say, well, we
could have gotten a better deal: well, I don't know. I wasn't in the
room. I didn't negotiate the deal. Maybe their crystal ball is clearer
than my crystal ball.
Here's what I see in my crystal ball. I'm absolutely for certain in
my crystal ball that come January, Barack Obama is still going to be
President of the United States. In my crystal ball, Harry Reid is still
going to be Senate majority leader.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HENSARLING. That's what I see in my crystal ball. So maybe the
[[Page 22436]]
friends on my side of the aisle, maybe you're right. But you have a
degree of certainty and clarity of the future I do not have. So,
personally, I'm not willing to take the chance.
I'm going to cast the ``aye'' vote. I'm going to stop the job-killing
tax increases. I'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty, 2
years of certainty to the Tax Code. And I'm going to fight to put this
Nation back on the road to fiscal sanity because, in this legislation,
I see the glass half full.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished Member from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply disappointed in the recently
negotiated tax deal by the White House. While one can find items that
are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows
just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax
breaks for the top 2 percent of our country. My fear is that the 2001-
2003 Bush tax cuts will become permanent, and our fiscal future will
dim as America struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt
creation in its history. We should, instead, be investing in capital
formation, technological innovation, job creation, and education. These
are the real building blocks for a strong future for all Americans.
I'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general
fund to cover Social Security payroll taxes. This is the first time in
the history of Social Security that the firewall between the general
fund and Social Security is being taken down. This is dangerous. It's a
bad precedent and one I believe we will all regret.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a member of
our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has
been working day and night on this issue.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked with
Congressman Pomeroy and Chairman Levin and others on the amendment that
we're going to be voting on later tonight.
While this House recently passed, and Democrats have been fighting,
to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98 percent of the American
people, Senate Republicans made it clear that they will raise, that
they will raise taxes on every American if they don't get a special
bonus tax break for the very top 2 percent.
In order to break that stalemate, President Obama concluded he needed
to cut a deal. What this amendment we will be voting on later tonight
does is give the American people a better deal. Specifically, it asks
all of us to consider this question: In an era of $1 trillion deficits,
with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely 2 weeks after
the bipartisan fiscal commission's ``Moment of Truth'' report, should
we really be borrowing $23 billion from China to give the wealthiest
6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year?
Think about it: $23 billion for the wealthiest 6,600 estates a year,
at a time of fiscal challenge, in a Nation of over 300 million people,
without any benefit for job creation or economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, much of the deal negotiated by the White House is
defensible. But I would say to my colleagues, if we can't agree now
that now is not the time to be giving the top three-tenths of 1 percent
a multi-million dollar tax break, we're clearly not serious about
bringing down the deficit.
There's another way, and that's in the amendment we will be voting on
later today. We can adopt the amendment. It will provide a $3.5 million
exemption and 45 percent maximum rate. That's identical, identical to
the rates and exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and significantly
better than the rates that will take place if we take no action on
January 1 when the exemption would go to 1 million and the rate would
go to 55 percent. In fact, if enacted, this amendment would represent
the lowest estate tax in 77 years up through 2009.
Mr. Chairman, we have to level with the American people. We've got to
start somewhere bringing down the deficits. And if we can't settle on
the estate tax exemptions and rates that were in place in 2009, which,
as I say, were the lowest, the lowest in 77 years, if we can't do that
and, instead, we're going to say to the very wealthiest estates, heck,
we're going to give you $23 billion over the next 2 years to benefit
just 6,600 estates, how can we look the American people in the eye and
say we're serious?
{time} 2220
Mr. Chairman, I hope when this amendment comes up later today we can
make this deal one that truly benefits all the interests of all the
people in this great country.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Wake up and listen to the sirens, the sirens of the election that
were about the deficit in America, and you want to add $1 trillion to
that deficit. Wake up and listen to the sirens of the people who are
needing of help.
I can't believe that you talk about this bill as fiscal sanity. It's
fiscal insanity, putting us in another trillion dollars of debt, and
with this concept of, if you give the rich more money, it will trickle
down.
Well, those sirens that are responding to the children that are in
need of health care, to the people who need to be rescued, aren't paid
for by trickle-down economics. The rich never pay for that. There isn't
an ambulance in the country that's paid for by the rich. There isn't a
soldier that's paid for by the rich. There isn't a schoolteacher in a
public school paid for by the rich. That doesn't happen.
Your putting our country into debt is what Admiral Mullen said is the
biggest issue in national security. It's what the debt commission said
we couldn't do. There's nothing in this bill that's fiscal sanity. It's
insanity. We fixed this debt by closing these tax loopholes, and now
you want to give them away. Shame on you.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
again and expecting a different result.
To my friends on the Republican side, we did this 10 years ago with
the Bush tax cuts, and it didn't work. It has been mentioned over and
over again. It built up these deficits, including the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan that you supported so well, and has created this deficit
that threatened our country to make us look like a future Ireland, a
future Portugal, countries that are in great deficit, problems that we
are putting our country and our future into. We don't need to be insane
and try to do this over again. I feel like it's a return to Christmas
Past.
And there's a book in the New Testament that says: From those who are
given much, much is expected. But in this Congress, from those who have
much, we are expecting little, we get little from it, and we are giving
them the biggest tax breaks of all. And to the people who die and are
the richest in our Nation, the Steinbrenners who died with $1.1
billion, we will be giving them this year a $450 million free ride and,
with the differences in the taxes of 35 or 45 percent, $100 million.
This is wrong, and that's why I'm opposed to the bill.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, what an honor and privilege it is to be a
Member of this House, and what an amazement it is to me to hear this
debate that I have heard so much in the past. The road to prosperity is
not through tax increases. The road to prosperity in America is not
through class warfare.
My mother and father came to an America, a United States of America,
[[Page 22437]]
for a better life, for an opportunity--not a guarantee, an opportunity,
for their kids to be successful, for their kids to do well and pay
taxes and do well for their kids.
When you're voting on a bill tonight that extends current tax rates,
the current Tax Code that represents, Mr. Chairman, three-quarters of
this bill, that represents three-quarters of the, quote, spending in
this bill, and Members of this body say we have to borrow to allow
people to keep the money that they earned, where have we come?
My father was a steelworker who loved John F. Kennedy, who proposed
similar types of tax increases. My mother was a seamstress. Neither
graduated from high school. They don't believe in class warfare.
Do they support all of this bill? Certainly not. Do I? Certainly not.
But the question now, Mr. Chairman, is: Do we allow, on January 1, the
largest tax increase in American history? That's the question.
I didn't negotiate this bill. If I were king, I would have certainly
negotiated it differently. Only in Washington, D.C., can people keep
what they have today and not pay more taxes does it cost the government
money.
Think about the farmer who is sick, who is trying to plan his estate.
And would I support permanency in the estate tax? Absolutely. And let's
eliminate it. But if this bill doesn't pass, a $1 million exemption
occurs for that sick farmer trying to plan his estate. Will he have to
sell his land, Mr. Chairman?
How about the single mom with two jobs trying to provide for her two
kids? Her taxes will go up. How about the teacher and the police
officer raising a family? The marriage penalty. How about the small
business owner who pulled me aside on Wednesday and said: I can't even
plan my business. I'd like to hire somebody. And you folks in
Washington have known for how long that these tax rates were going to
go up?
Last year, the majority party had 60 votes in the Senate, had a clear
majority in the House. You could have passed something. And here we
are, 9 days before Christmas, and the Grinch is about ready to steal it
for so many Americans who will see their taxes go up, Mr. Chairman, if
this bill isn't passed.
Now, there are a lot of things in this bill that I don't like. But
the question today, Mr. Chairman, is: Do we let the perfect be the
enemy of the good?
I could sit up here and pick apart pieces of this legislation. But
when three-fourths of this is the current Tax Code, three-fourths of
this allows for the current rates to continue so taxes don't go up on
millions and millions of Americans, Mr. Chairman, it really comes down
to this simple logic:
We cannot tax our way to prosperity. We cannot tax our way to fiscal
responsibility. We must pass this bill and give 2 years for this
Congress, this President, this Senate to come up with a better way, a
more simple way to tax Americans; allow them to keep more of their
money; provide for a way for capital to work in America's favor and
allow America to be more competitive again, with a Tax Code that makes
sense.
But the question today is: Do we allow taxes to go up, or do we allow
Americans to have some certainty for the next 2 years?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the
committee for allowing me to speak.
I support maintaining the estate tax at the exemption of $3.5
million. That's not what is in this legislation. And I believe in the
value of hard work and rewarding those who are able to succeed, but I
know some perceive the estate tax as undermining these values.
However, we know that Americans with multimillion-dollar estates are
not the only hard workers in our Nation. We have millions of Social
Security recipients who have worked their entire lives but have seen
their benefits decline due to no cost of living adjustment for 2
straight years now.
What message do we send our Social Security recipients that we are
giving 6,600 families a tax break on the average of $1.5 million each,
but we can't find it appropriate to give our seniors on a fixed income
a little bit more breathing room by sending them a $250 check to allow
them to pay their bills and afford their medicine?
The government's calculation tells us that the cost of living has not
increased over the last 2 years, but seniors in my district and most of
our own districts have done their own calculations. The cost of
electricity, gas, and health care have risen dramatically.
I hope to support a bill that will benefit most of my constituents,
but this bill does not. Hopefully, we will see amendments that will
make it better.
{time} 2230
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of people that believe the
Democrats stand for a lot of mainstream American values: keeping our
air and water clean so we can breathe and drink freely, improving our
public schools, our live-and-let-live policies. But somewhere in the
back of a lot of Americans' minds, they are worried that the Democrats
are going to raise taxes.
Well, I am proud to say tonight that thanks to the leadership of
President Barack Obama, we are going to deliver one of the largest tax
cuts in history.
Here is a $20 bill, Mr. Chairman. For every $20 that an American
family earns, that earns $40,000 a year, $60,000 a year, they are going
to get an extra dollar, an extra dollar for every 20 they earn this
year. And, yes, there is money that is going to go to people earning $1
million. They might get 60 or 70 cents for every $20 they earn, and,
yes, we would have rather used that money to reduce the deficit.
But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, mainstream America, that extra
dollar will help keep people in their homes. In addition to that extra
dollar, Mr. Chairman, every American that gets a paycheck will get a 2
percent raise this year, thanks to the leadership of President Barack
Obama. Two percent right off the payroll tax, every paycheck. I know a
lot of companies have frozen their employees' salaries. Federal
employees had their salaries frozen.
Well, thanks to the leadership of President Barack Obama, the
citizens of our country can rest assured they will not get a tax
increase.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, the time
is now for us to ask the one fundamental question before us: What is in
the best interests of the American people at this time? By ``American
people,'' I mean every American, from the top of the economic ladder to
the bottom, but especially those at the bottom.
This is basically a 24-month stimulus bill, by getting money to those
who need it most, who will put it in the marketplace the quickest,
which will help us create jobs. Seventy percent of this entire $853
billion package will go to the low income and the middle income. There
is no other way to put it.
And when you talk about rates, we dare not go home here today having
raised taxes on the American people. We have got to cut the taxes, keep
them down.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have to realize that at the lowest economic
ladder, the lowest tax rate is 10 percent. If we don't move, those
people at the bottom that we care about, especially us on the
Democratic side, their taxes will go up 50 percent.
We've got to move this bill in the best interests of the American
people.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Chairman, tonight, well-meaning Members of Congress
have been debating who will pay to clean up the mess left behind by
President Bush's failed economic policies,
[[Page 22438]]
policies that included two tax cuts to the richest Americans at the
very same we were prosecuting two wars.
But we all know this: there is no free lunch. And yet the Senate is
asking the House of Representatives to designate this bill as an
emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go, thereby failing to live within
our means and driving our children deeper into debt.
The Senate also seeks to fix this emergency by immediately turning
over $129 billion of money we don't have to the very wealthiest
Americans, wrongly thinking that the Republican-inspired idea of
trickle-down economics will work today when it failed miserably in the
recent past.
Well, responsibility must begin somewhere. Let it begin here with me.
The reality is there is no emergency that justifies handing out tax
cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this time. Instead, we should
bring our children home from wars overseas, and, after paying for these
wars, then determine if we have any money left over for tax cuts to
millionaires and billionaires.
America cannot afford tax cuts for the rich. We don't have the money.
They do.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentleman.
You know, it doesn't take a great deal of courage to come to the
floor of the House and say I'm in favor of low taxes. Yes, I think we
all want no taxes. We would all like to have no communal needs that we
have. We would like to have no national defense. We would like to have
no concerns about clean water.
What we hear of the fight about in elections and, frankly, every
single day on the floor is, Who do we stand for? Who are we defending?
On this side of the Chamber we believe that those people in the
middle class and those struggling to make it, who each and every year
for the past two decades have been getting pushed further and further
down, need help.
On the other side of this Chamber are people who quite literally
stood up all day today to say, I want to give tax cuts to people who
make $1 million and $1 billion a year; and, wait for it, ladies and
gentleman, we want to borrow the money from the Chinese to give it to
them.
I want the wealthy to be as wealthy as they can be. I have no grudge
against that. I want all of us to be that wealthy. But we should be a
country that fights for those who really need the help. We should not
be a country that says: You know what? If you're a billionaire, we want
to give you a little bit more.
Who's going to pay the bill? Who is ultimately going to pay for this
tax cut? It is going to be our children and our grandchildren. And to
come to the floor and say, well, I want to help hardworking Americans,
I have to tell you, when the top 1 percent in this country are making
as much as the next 25 percent, I think I know who we want to help.
On this side, we want to help those middle class people and those
struggling to make it, and my Republican friends all over this evening
have been standing up for millionaires and billionaires. That is the
fundamental choice that we have to make here.
I believe that this tax bill has fundamental flaws. If you believe
that you should be borrowing from Social Security to pay for a payroll
tax, you like this bill. But I know a lot of Americans don't believe
that.
So I think what we should do, what we should do is make sure that we
fix the estate portion of this, and then we should take a step back and
say, you know what we should do? Let's stand up for the middle class.
That is what the Democrats stand for.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, let me first note that this whole situation
is an example of what is wrong with Washington. As a new Member, I
think we have to stop continuously putting off difficult decisions
until we are forced to make a decision in crisis mode as the clock
clicks to zero hour. This vote has profound ramifications for every
American, and now we are backed into a corner where the current tax
rates expire on all taxpayers if we do nothing.
It didn't need to be this way. Shame on the politicians whose
inaction over the decade forced us onto this precarious ledge. Shame on
the leadership of the past 2 years who put us into this boxed corner.
Good policy cannot be handcuffed by this sort of last minute
political guerilla warfare. The process which brought us to this point
is inexcusable, so much so that the average middle class family in my
district will pay more than $1,500 in increased taxes if we fail to
act.
Our economic recovery in upstate New York continues to lag.
Preventing the pending income and estate tax hikes that will hit every
family and business in my district is paramount at this time. But once
this bill is passed, we must begin in the next Congress to eradicate
out-of-control spending. We cannot be put into this position again.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to
the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership on fairness for growing the economy, for
reducing the deficit and for creating jobs, because that is some of
what is done in this bill.
I think I want to use my time to make some distinctions here.
President Obama and the Democrats have supported initiatives to protect
the middle class. We are fighting for the middle class. We are wanting
to grow the economy and to create jobs and reduce the deficit, so we
must subject whatever legislation that comes before us as to how it
meets those tests.
This legislation on the Democratic side of the ledger does create
jobs and the demand that creating jobs injects into the economy helps
reduce the deficit. For example, unemployment insurance provisions that
are in the legislation economists across the board tell us return more
money to the economy than almost any initiative you can name. People
spend that money quickly. These are people who are looking for work,
people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Their
unemployment insurance is spent immediately, again injecting demand
into the economy, creating jobs.
Low income tax credit, refundable.
{time} 2240
Child tax credit; refundable. All of this placed in the hands of the
working families in America, again, spent immediately, injecting
demand, creating jobs. The college tuition tax credit, very important
for America's working families and their children.
So here we are with a bill on one side of the ledger that benefits
155 million Americans. We have tax cuts for the middle class across the
board. Everybody gets that tax cut. But in order for the middle class
to get that tax cut, the Republicans insist that those who make the top
2 percent in our country get an extra tax cut, adding billions of
dollars to the deficit and not creating any jobs. To add insult to
injury, they have now added this estate tax provision--and, mind you,
the Democratic side of the ledger benefits 155 million Americans. In
order for the President to get those terms accepted, the Republicans
insisted that $23 billion in benefits go to the 6,600 wealthiest
families in America. 6,600 families holding up tax cuts for 155 million
Americans. Is that fair? Does that meet any test of fairness that we
have? Again, this $23 billion not creating jobs, this $23 billion
increasing the deficit by 8 percent in the fiscal year.
Think of what we could do with that $23 billion. We could triple our
research in cancer and diabetes. I think that means something to all
Americans, including those 6,600 wealthiest families. We could give a
$7,000 raise to every public school teacher in America. We could
create, investing in new technology, 780,000 jobs--780,000 jobs.
Instead, we're giving a bonanza to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in
America who really don't need the help.
[[Page 22439]]
It's just amazing to hear our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle talk about deficit reduction when everything on their side of the
ledger increases the deficit and does not create jobs. Tax cuts to the
wealthiest 2 percent; the most egregious of all, the estate tax
provision that they have that benefits not 1 percent, not one-half of 1
percent, but one-quarter of 1 percent of the American people. We have
to borrow that money from China and send the bill to our children and
our grandchildren. And that is not good policy. It does not have a
favorable impact on the deficit. It does not create jobs. It does not
grow our economy. It does not stimulate growth in our country.
And so I hope that our colleagues will vote favorably for the Pomeroy
amendment to bring some fairness and clarity to the estate tax issue.
On that, 99.7 percent of all Americans are exempted. 99.7 percent of
all Americans are exempted from paying estate tax under Pomeroy. But we
had to get that upper 3 percent in this legislation in order to benefit
155 million Americans. These figures have to be engraved in our being--
155 million. You can't have that unless 6,600. I've said it over and
over.
And then, on top of all of that, on the Democratic side of the ledger
we have the green initiative, 1603, that the Senate put in the bill.
This is just a very positive provision for renewable energy--wind,
solar, et cetera. But the Republicans said, That's the limit. We won't
accept any more. And so all of the initiatives for innovation that have
been passed the past few years that should have been extended, we said
``no'' to innovation, we said ``no'' to the future, we said ``no'' to
keeping America number one for encouraging our competitiveness.
So if we're talking about growth, we have to talk about investments
in the future. If we're talking about being number one, we have to have
an innovation agenda to do it. The Republicans said ``no'' to that.
They only said ``yes'' to tax cuts to the wealthiest.
As Mr. Weiner said, we recognize success. We admire success. We all
want to be part of it. God bless them for having the wealth that they
have, whether it is inherited or earned. We recognize success and what
wealth does to create jobs, et cetera. But we also want to reward work.
We want to reward work. So in order to reward work in this legislation,
we had to have a big payoff to the top one-quarter percent of America's
wealthiest families.
So for my colleagues, as they review this, this is very difficult.
Nobody wants taxes to go up for the great middle class. In fact,
everybody gets a tax cut in this. We just don't see why we have to give
an extra tax cut to the wealthiest and then an extra, extra estate tax
benefit to the top one-quarter percent.
As Members have to make up their mind about this, I hope that they
will vote for the Pomeroy amendment to this legislation. They'll have
to make their own decisions as to whether it is necessary to be held
hostage, to pay a king's ransom, in order to help the middle class. We
absolutely cannot allow taxes to go up come January 1.
The previous speaker said we have to look to how we were forced to
this precarious ledge. Yes, let us look to how we were forced to this
precarious ledge. This situation, the recession that we were in--the
deep recession that we were in--President Obama was a job creator from
day one with the Recovery Act and pulled us back from that recession.
The financial crisis that they created, President Obama pulled us back
from that. And, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? Remember
the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit?
Now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in Christmas
bonuses. And these Republicans in this House of Representatives are
saying, We don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100
billion. More money given in bonuses on Wall Street. Think of it. Over
$100 billion dollars. And we want to give them a free ride in terms of
paying their fair share.
So if it comes to creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the
deficit, investing in growth and competitiveness and innovation to keep
America number one, I applaud President Obama for his side of the
ledger. I'm sorry that the price that has to be paid for it is so high.
At a time when everybody is preaching the gospel of deficit reduction,
the Republicans come in with an increase in the deficit to the tune of
over $100 billion dollars for people in our country who need it the
least and, again, where it does not create jobs.
So Members will have to make up their minds as to how we go forward
on the bill. But I hope that all of them in their consideration of it
will vote for the Pomeroy amendment, which addresses the most
egregious--with stiff competition, mind you, in this bill--the most
egregious provision when it comes to fairness, reducing the deficit,
and not creating jobs.
I, again, commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and
all of our colleagues who have had to explain through all of the
misrepresentations that have been made about what this legislation is
about. And, again, I salute President Obama for getting in the bill
what is in there. I'm sorry at the price that has to be paid by our
children and grandchildren to the Chinese government to pay for the
increase in the deficit that the Republicans insisted upon.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the Senate
and the House and controlled the White House for the last 2 years. And
as we know, in the House, the majority can pretty much do what they
want, as was demonstrated with the trillion-dollar stimulus bill, as
was demonstrated with ObamaCare.
{time} 2250
There is some explaining to do.
Why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? Why didn't the
majority bring a bill to the floor before the election?
Now, as Americans face these tax increases, here we are just a few
short days before the end of the year, and now, because there is a
bipartisan compromise, which incidentally passed the Senate 81-19, I
think there is a recognition that this is just no time to be playing
games with our economy. The failure to block these tax increases would
be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers, and it
would further delay our economic recovery.
For those reasons, I support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will vote on a
bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion. While this package
includes several programs I have proudly supported, I cannot support
the underlying bill.
As recently as last week, I voted to give every American a tax cut by
making the middle class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American
families, consumers, and small business owners who drive our economy. I
have consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the
families struggling in this difficult time.
Those were some of the good things included in this deal.
Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad
things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures
to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to
support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax
break to the wealthiest people in this country. I refuse to support a
bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an
average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a
year.
That is why I am voting ``no,'' and I urge you to do the same.
Americans spoke clearly on November 2. Congress must get serious
about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax
dollars. After endless talk throughout this session about fiscal
responsibility, the looming threat of a growing deficit and forcing
America's next generation into crushing debt to China--a so-called tax
deal has been produced. Today, this House will vote on a bill that will
explode the deficit by $858 billion dollars.
[[Page 22440]]
While this package includes several programs I have proudly
supported, I cannot support the underlying bill. As recently as last
week, I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle-
class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families,
consumers and small business owners who drive our economy. I have
consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the
families struggling in this difficult recession. I have voted to extend
the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to assist our
Nation's low-income families who have a difficult enough time making
ends meet as it is. I have consistently voted for ethanol and biodiesel
tax credits that sustain the growth of our Nation's renewable energy
industry and support the jobs of thousands of my constituents in Iowa.
Those were some of the good things included in this deal.
Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad
things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures
to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to
support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax
break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a
bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an
average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a
year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of
social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security
contributions.
I'm voting ``no'' on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the
can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the
deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial
stability of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
``no.''
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The Speaker was talking about how the Republicans
held hostage 150 million Americans in favor of 6,600 families who will
get this inflated break on their estate taxes. Who are those families?
The Koch Family: the primary funders of the tea party movement and
other conservative causes, having a vast fortune estimated to be as
much as $35 billion. Under the Republican, versus the Pomeroy
amendment, that family would realize over $2 billion extra.
The Walton Family: Wal-Mart; seven descendants; a combined worth of
$87 billion--more than some whole countries. His family will pay $7
billion less in taxes under the Republican proposal versus the Pomeroy.
The Gallo Family.
The Dorrance Family: the Campbell Soup giant with a combined wealth
of $6.5 billion and a savings of $522 million.
The Mars Candy Company Family: $30 billion in wealth. Their estate
taxes will go down $2.5 billion.
Are these the people this Congress is supposed to represent? Let's
vote for Pomeroy.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now a real pleasure to yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, two pieces of legislation
tell us a lot about the values of our Republican colleagues.
This bill will take $114 billion in revenues out of Social Security,
helping them make the case ultimately, in a kind of self-fulfilling
prophecy, that we can't pay everything we want.
Earlier this session, they voted overwhelmingly and killed a proposal
to give each Social Security recipient $250--not $250,000 or $250
million, numbers with which they are more familiar--but $250. These are
people who are going to be facing an increase in Medicare because we
learned only in October that there would not be a cost-of-living
increase.
We couldn't afford the $14 billion to give $250 to older people who
are having trouble paying their heating bills, but they can afford $114
billion that will go to everybody, including to people who make
$100,000 a year, who will get eight times $250. The values of the
Republican Party are revealed by this.
By the way, we are in this situation because of dishonesty. When
George Bush and the Republicans passed the tax cuts in 2001, they
didn't want to admit the full account of how much it cost.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Not simply are they showing their values,
but they said, Oh, you're going to give $250 to Warren Buffett on
Social Security.
They want to give $250,000 to Warren Buffett, which, to his credit,
he doesn't want.
In fact, the reason we are in this bind is, in 2001 and 2003, George
Bush and the Republican majorities wanted to pass very large tax cuts
despite their professed concern about the deficit--and we now see from
this bill that their slogan is ``deficit-schmeficit''--but they didn't
want to admit how much it would cost, so the CBO couldn't give us the
full value of the cost. They made very bad tax policy.
They did it. I voted against it.
They made major changes in the Tax Code to end after 10 years, and
they did that Humpty Dumpty roller coaster with the estate tax. That
wackiness was their effort to hide the true amount of the hole they
were burning in the deficit, so they have only themselves to blame.
But let me return.
They couldn't afford $14 billion to give $250 payments to Social
Security recipients--and overwhelmingly, they killed it when we tried
to pass it--but they can take $114 billion out of Social Security.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a
Member who has been very active on this issue, the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, with all the back and forth, what we really
have before us are two problems facing America.
One is too few jobs: 9.8 percent of Americans who want work are out
of work--15 million people. Millions more are so discouraged that they
are the underemployed. We have got to find a way to put them back to
work.
The second problem we have is too much debt. Without going into the
history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we
went from the Clinton tax rates to the Bush tax rates. We went from a
surplus of 20 million jobs created to 8 million jobs lost. We have a
debt now that is approaching $14 trillion, and with the passage of this
bill, we will be approaching $15 trillion.
The question for us to the American people is:
If we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a
job bang for that dollar borrowed?
That dollar borrowed is coming from China. What this legislation will
do is literally ask the American middle class to borrow $200 billion to
pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest families. This is not an objection
to people being wealthy, as has been said. They can be generous, and
they can create jobs. It is about whether that dollar borrowed will
produce a job for an out-of-work American--and it won't.
There are other alternatives to what is before us. We should not be
borrowing money that won't be productive. What we should do is a very
simple alternative that hasn't even been considered:
We can extend the middle class tax cuts, as President Obama wants to,
but we can stop it at $250,000. We can invest the savings in deficit
reduction and half in infrastructure development. We can, as Mr. Frank
said, provide a $250 one-time payment to the folks on Social Security,
who haven't had a COLA increase in 2 years. We can have a piece of
legislation that will borrow less, reduce the deficit, and create more
jobs.
Our responsibility, fundamentally, is to the American middle class.
One of the reasons they so fear this debt is because they know, at the
end of the day, they will have to repay it--their sons, their
daughters. The bondholders will be okay, but the middle class will pay.
{time} 2300
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 22441]]
We've heard a lot of debate on floor this evening, but let's look at
what the employers and economists are saying about this legislation and
this agreement.
The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest
organization in the country representing small businesses: Senate
passage of the tax compromise is a good step, the first step, to
encourage the certainty that the small business community needs and has
repeatedly asked for. Knowing their tax liability will remain low and
including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the
family business are key components to a small business' ability to move
forward, grow their business, and create jobs. Changes to this
compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small
businesses need. We encourage the House to take up this measure quickly
and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form.
The Business Round Table says: Restoration of these provisions lifts
an uncertainty for businesses that will improve their ability to employ
more workers and grow the economy.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Enacting this bipartisan framework
forged by the President and Congress is one of the best steps
Washington can take to eliminate the uncertainty that is preventing our
employers from hiring, investing, and growing their businesses.
And what does economist Mark Zandi say, frequently cited by the
Speaker as an important voice in economic matters: The fiscal policy
compromise reached this week by the Obama administration and
congressional Republicans would be good for the economy next year.
It is too risky to play games with the economy. We need to stop this
massive tax increase in its tracks. Support this legislation in its
current form. Oppose the Pomeroy amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to
our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have just come through a wrenching election. Wrenching, in large
part, because of the pain being experienced by our constituents, some
more than others. A pain that they're experiencing in part because they
are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support
themselves and their families. We all heard that pain. We all heard
that concern. At the same time as we heard the concern about the pain
of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about
deficits and debt.
And so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges:
growing our economy and creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan
deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children.
The American public would hope that we would come together and pass
that on which we can agree, that on which we can compromise.
This House, in fact, passed two pieces of legislation weeks ago and
months ago. Months ago, we passed legislation which would give
certainty, and my Republican colleagues talk about certainty and I
agree with them. We need to give certainty to families, certainty to
businesses, and, yes, certainty to those who are worried about estates.
They ought to expect that of us, and we passed 12 months ago a
continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7
million per couple exemption and a 45 percent rate.
But that languished in the United States Senate. It languished
because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to
extend certainty. That was unfortunate, in my view, because I think
that was an appropriate rate, and I will vote for it on this floor,
embodied in the Pomeroy amendment.
And then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to
all Americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first
$250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if
you're an individual. All individuals, no matter how rich, no matter
how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped, and very
frankly, there were only a few Members on this floor on either side of
the aisle who disagreed with that proposition.
But as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we
won't take something we want. That's not good for the American people,
and it's not good for our country. And very frankly, only three or four
Members on the Republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that
legislation, notwithstanding the fact it carried out part of what they
thought was appropriate, and we agreed. But it was not enough.
The President of the United States has a responsibility to all
Americans, and like every President he can't get everything he wants.
To that extent, he's like us. We don't get everything we want, and this
bill does not represent everything I want. Those of you who have heard
me debate time after time know how concerned I am about this debt and
deficit, and you have seen me vote on this floor sometimes in the small
minority against steps that I thought would exacerbate the budget
deficit without a proper return.
This bill, the President of the United States believes, and I
believe, will have a positive effect on the economy, and I think we
need that. And unlike some of my colleagues, whose views I share but I
have reached a different conclusion, I will vote for this bill because
I don't want to see middle-income working people in America get a tax
increase because I think that will be a depressant on an economy that
needs to be lifted up.
But I am also concerned about the deficit, and I know we're going to
borrow every nickel in this bill. I'm for PAYGO. My children, if you
ask them, would say they're for PAYGO because they don't want to pay
our bills. They're going to have their own bills. Unfortunately, the
President and we were confronted with alternatives: Do we extend
unemployment insurance when unemployment is at a 9.6 to 9.8 percent
rate, or do we let them languish with no certainty? Not certainty about
planning whether or not their $7 million estate can be excluded from
taxes, but worrying about whether they can put food on the table
tomorrow. But unemployment insurance has languished because we haven't
had a deal on upper-income taxes or estate taxes being increased from
$7 million to $10 million for a couple.
My friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together. We
need to come together in dealing with this debt. We need to come
together in dealing with tax reform. We need to come together in
growing jobs. That ought to be the agenda of this next Congress and
every Congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the
American people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to
have.
{time} 2310
Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side, very frankly, I
have not seen your economic philosophy work. Jack Kemp and I served on
the Appropriations Committee, but I don't think supply side is working.
Supply side, in my opinion, has the proposition that, if you do less,
you get more. Nothing that I have done in life instructs me that, if I
do less, I get more. And because of that, because of the concept, if
you simply cut taxes on those who are the wealthiest in our society,
somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated.
Not one year did that happen.
It happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1 percent was going to
pay just a little more in 1993, and all of you opposed it--all of you,
to a person. And you said it would destroy the economy. Your leader at
that point in time--I'm not sure it was the majority leader at that
time--Dick Armey said that this would tank the economy.
He was 180 degrees wrong.
In fact, we experienced the best economy we have seen in this country
in my lifetime, with 22 million new jobs in 8 years--216,000 jobs per
month in the private sector. But unfortunately, under the economic
program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst
job production since Herbert Hoover.
Now, I'm going to vote for this bill because I think it does help the
economy, but we are paying too great a
[[Page 22442]]
price for it because, very frankly, I don't need a tax cut. That's not
to say I don't want a tax cut. But it will not affect my life, and it
will not affect the economy. It will exacerbate the debt. That's not
good for my children or for our country.
So I would urge all of us, as we vote on this piece of legislation--
whatever decision we make--to understand the message that we all
received about growing the economy. That is why the President has made
this deal that a lot of us don't like, because we think that it was
unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion.
And because we have limited it to 2 years--it's less than that in
terms of just the upper income--we did not have to pay that price. But
we needed to pay the price. We needed to borrow the money to get this
economy moving, to get the middle income people having dollars in their
pockets so they can grow the economy. And that's worth the price
because we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our
economy growing. We cannot depress at the same time we try to grow, but
we grow in the short term, and we solve the deficit in a little longer
term.
So I'm going to vote for the Pomeroy amendment. And then in the final
analysis, I will vote for this bill. I believe that folks need
certainty, as has been said.
I urge my colleagues, as we vote on this legislation, to commit
ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what America wants us to
do--to come together as we did. In 1993, we didn't. Some people lost
their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and
correctness.
Ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who
likes this bill; and therefore, the judgment is: Is it better than
doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe that it will help. I
hope they are right. Not only do I hope they are right, I hope if we
pass this bill that they respond and create the jobs that we know they
have the resources to do.
This is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why I will vote for it. It
could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we are giving
to the wealthiest in America in job growth. It is a bill that will help
those who have been unemployed week after week after week and whose
angst has grown and grown and grown.
Ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it, but
let us when we do so pledge that we will do better in the months and
years to come.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4853,
the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act.
Two weeks ago, I voted for a better bill, the Middle Class Tax Relief
Act, which passed the House but was not taken up by the Senate. That
bill would have extended tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, including
about 323,000 lower- and middle-income families in my congressional
district who make less than $200,000 (under $250,000 for joint filers).
The bill that is on the floor today extends tax cuts on all income
levels, including the wealthiest Americans, costing $407.6 billion.
Under this bill, the millionaires and billionaires can sleep soundly,
secure in the knowledge that their tax cuts will continue for at least
another two years, while the unemployed get relief for only 13 months.
Economists predict that many millions will continue to be unemployed
beyond the 13 months.
This deal is weighted so heavily toward the richest few that the
unemployed only receive 7 percent of the total package. We must fight
for a better deal.
But my biggest concern has to do with a threat to the solvency of
Social Security contained in the legislation. The so-called ``payroll
tax holiday'' in H.R. 4853 raids the Social Security Trust Fund. Anyone
who cares about Social Security should be scared by this. This
provision reduces the Social Security payroll tax and self-employment
tax by two percentage points in 2011. Payroll taxes provide dedicated
funding for the Social Security Trust Fund, which is completely
separate from the General Fund. Under this bill, these Social Security
funds will be repaid by $112 billion from the General Fund. But this
``one-time'' infusion from the General Fund puts us on a slippery
slope. While this payroll tax holiday expires in one year, there is a
serious question as to whether expiration will occur. We can expect a
bill to extend this payroll tax holiday because any other outcome would
be characterized as a tax increase. A permanent decrease in the Social
Security payroll tax will put the Social Security Trust Fund in
jeopardy. Republicans will be one step closer to their stated goal of
privatizing and dismantling Social Security's safety net. If we want to
put more money in the hands of families, we could look at cutting a
check for families from the General Fund, but weakening the funding
source for Social Security is too risky.
In Hawaii, Social Security benefits serve as a lifeline for 220,000
seniors, disabled people, and dependents. Thousands of my constituents
have urged me to preserve Social Security, and I have consistently
acted to do so. Earlier this year, I spoke on the House floor in
support of preserving this bedrock promise to our nation's seniors and
fighting Republicans' plans to privatize or reduce benefits. I also
signed a letter to the Fiscal Commission urging that any plans to
reduce the deficit make no cuts to Social Security or change the
retirement age.
This bill truly is a raw deal for American seniors. One of my
constituents in Hilo calls the proposal a ``bomb of a cut to Social
Security taxes.'' A majority of Americans oppose cutting Social
Security payroll funding and are willing to pay more so that they can
be assured that they will get benefits when they retire or become
disabled. I don't make pledges lightly, but I pledge that I will vote
to return dedicated Social Security payroll tax funding should it be
brought up for a vote next year.
Further, this legislation gives an estate tax giveaway to only 6,600
families in our entire country, giving them each an average additional
tax cut of more than $1.5 million. According to the Tax Policy Center,
the new tax would affect the smallest number of estates in any year
since 1934. This tax giveaway to the richest families in the country
will cost us more than $68 billion, adding to our deficit without
creating jobs or strengthening our economy.
The Levin/Pomeroy Amendment makes the bill a bit fairer by taxing
estates at the 2009 rate of 45 percent and covering estates over $3.5
million, not the $5 million in the Senate bill. This amendment would
save $23 billion. Extending estate tax relief for two years at the 2009
rate provides Americans with some certainty for estate planning in a
way that is much more reasonable and fair than that proposed by the
Senate bill.
The key components of this bill that I strongly support include the
extension of tax cuts for the middle class and the extension of
unemployment insurance for Americans who lost their jobs because of
this difficult economy. In addition to my recent vote on extending tax
cuts for the middle class, I voted to extend unemployment benefits
seven times this year alone.
We've had numerous opportunities to extend the tax cuts for the
middle class and extend unemployment benefits. The majority of
Republicans voted against these proposals time and again.
On balance, I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill in its
present form. The $858 billion price tag and true cost of the bill--tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the impact of the ``payroll tax
holiday'' on Social Security--far outweigh the benefits. This bill is
blackmail, holding the unemployed and middle class hostage to give a
special deal to the millionaires and billionaires. We must fight for a
better deal.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation unless we are able to
vote on a bill that genuinely helps the working families that we are
here to represent.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition
to the irresponsible and immoral tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
included in this bill.
On this very night, senior citizens, disabled people, and poor
families in public housing in Sanford, Florida are going without heat
during one of the coldest spells in Florida's history. Yet, Congress is
about to give billions to billionaires. There is a disconnect between
tax cuts for the wealthy and the pain of everyday Americans that is
shocking beyond belief.
If we cannot take care of our poorest citizens, why are we giving
handouts to the richest? The elections told us that Americans are tired
of giveaways to Wall Street and CEOs. But here we go again.
Why are we holding the middle class hostage to extending tax cuts for
the top 2% of incomes? We can give away $700 Billion in income tax
cuts, but we can't fix the heat in Sanford public housing.
On Christmas Eve, why are we giving a 25 Billion Dollar gift to forty
thousand families, but giving nothing to millions of people who have
been unemployed for more than 99 weeks?
The Bible teaches in Proverbs 21:13, ``if a man shuts his ears to the
cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.''
[[Page 22443]]
I have never shut my ears to the cries of Americans who need help,
but I will not vote for a bill that ties the fate of many to the wealth
of a few.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, after much deliberation, I rise in
opposition to today's legislation.
To me, this has never been about the wisdom or necessity of
compromise. Like most of my colleagues, I understand the need for
compromise, and I fully appreciate the predicament the President found
himself in.
While Democrats have been fighting to ensure tax rates do not go up
on 98% of Americans, Senate Republicans have made it abundantly clear
they are willing to raise taxes on every American this January unless
they get a bonus tax break for the wealthiest in our society--and
provide a tax-cut bonanza to a handful of super-rich estates.
In order to break the stalemate, the President concluded he needed a
deal--a deal that had to balance two of our Nation's very real but
competing imperatives: the need to accelerate economic growth, and the
need to reduce our national debt.
Some elements of today's legislation strike the right balance. In
particular, the middle class tax cuts, unemployment benefits and
Recovery Act credits for working families are both economically
justifiable and likely to achieve their intended effect.
Unfortunately, other provisions significantly miss the mark.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $89 billion spent
extending tax breaks for upper income earners is unlikely to create
jobs. Moreover, I have significant concerns about the structure and
long term consequences of the payroll tax holiday.
But the tipping point in this package is the estate tax. In an era of
$1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion,
barely two weeks after the publication of the bipartisan Fiscal
Commission's ``Moment of Truth'' report, does anybody really think we
should be borrowing $23 billion from China to give the wealthiest 6600
estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year?
Think about it. $23 Billion. For the wealthiest 6600 estates a year.
In a nation of over 300 million people. Without any benefit whatsoever
for job creation or economic growth.
I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that if we
can't look this moment squarely in the eye and conclude that now is not
the time to be giving the top three tenths of one percent of Americans
a multi-million tax break, we are clearly not serious about tackling
the monumental fiscal challenges we face.
And I would remind my colleagues that these fiscal challenges are not
theoretical. Earlier this week, Moody's warned that today's legislation
increased the likelihood of a downgrade to the United States' Triple-A
rating over the next two years. Bond prices have fallen sharply and
yields now sit at six month highs. If we're not careful, the bond
market could easily take away what today's legislation aims to provide.
Many of my Republican colleagues supporting today's legislation
profess a commitment to fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, but
turn a blind eye to deficit spending so long as it arises from tax
cuts. This is not coincidence. The rationale for the inconsistency has
been succinctly explained by conservative activist Grover Norquist, who
once proclaimed: ``I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to
reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown
it in the bathtub.''
After starving government, these same Republicans will undoubtedly be
back in the 112th Congress demanding debilitating and draconian cuts in
priority investments like education, clean energy and biomedical
research. This playbook is as predictable as it is misguided.
Mr. Chair, we simply cannot afford to borrow billions of dollars to
perpetuate wasteful and unwarranted tax breaks for our wealthiest
citizens at a time of unprecedented and unsustainable national debt--
tax breaks that do little for job creation and even less for the
economy. I accept the need for a deal. But for our children and our
grandchildren, I firmly believe there is a better deal to be had.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I have been involved in
politics for more than three decades. I am proud of my record of public
service to the people of the great State of Michigan and to our Nation.
Some of the proudest votes I have ever cast in my career have been in
support of the economic stimulus package, health care reform, saving
our manufacturing base by saving the auto industry, and preventing our
banking system from dragging our economy into a full-blown depression.
It is my point that we have not done enough to advertise the good
things we have done for Americans.
The economic stimulus package provided 95 percent of all Americans
with a tax cut, saved or created close to three million jobs, and
allowed States and cities to use bonds to fill their budget deficits.
Thanks to the revolution in health care by our health care law, the
largest deficit reduction law in the history of the United States, all
Americans will have access to health care for the first time in
history. While this law becomes fully phased in by 2014, some of its
mandates are working for Americans now, such as the fact that citizens
cannot be denied health care coverage due to pre-existing conditions,
filling in the Medicare Part D ``doughnut hole,'' and that insurance
companies cannot deny your health insurance once you are ill. The bold
Democratic program to save the auto industry, like the Troubled Asset
Relief Program (TARP) not only cost taxpayers less than anticipated,
taxpayers can potentially reap a profit from these programs. We have
been efficient and effective with the peoples' purse.
We are now voting on a tax ``deal'' that President Barack Obama
agreed to with Republicans to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts started
by former President George W. Bush. These tax cuts, which were not
offset by responsible spending cuts and gave the majority of the tax
cuts to the richest one percent of all Americans, were fiscally
irresponsible when they were first proposed. They were so controversial
and so fiscally unstable, the Republicans refused to make them
permanent. It took then Vice President Dick Cheney to come to the
Senate to break the 50-50 tie that stopped the bill from final passage.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind all Americans that we
have had not one, not two, but if this bill passes, four major tax cuts
at a time in which we are involved in not one, but two, wars. This is
the first time in American history that we have had a war and we did
not have a tax increase to help pay for that war.
I cannot, and will not, support this fiscally irresponsible bill.
This bill is a horrible deal for Americans. Not only does it extend the
Bush tax cuts, and the Republicans are willing to hold the extension of
unemployment benefits to three million American families to get it
done, as the late night infomercials like to say, ``wait, there's
more.''
This bill hammers Social Security. Through this legislation's cut in
the payroll tax, the tax that funds Social Security, the long-term
stability and safety net for our senior citizens is in jeopardy. For
every person who puts money into the Social Security program, two
people take money out of it. If you think that this one-third cut to
the payroll tax is going to come back in two years, don't count on it.
The more that this fund is delayed, the more the Social Security
program--a governmental program that has worked for more than seven
decades, and which is the sole difference between life in a home or
life on the street for over half of our senior citizens--is gutted.
This bill insufficiently helps the unemployed. Michigan has one of
the Nation's highest rates of unemployment, and Michiganders
desperately need unemployment insurance. But guess what? While this
bill extends unemployment for those three million people who currently
get it, it does nothing, not one thing at all, for the millions of
unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits under tier four.
If you have been out of work more than 99 weeks--and plenty of
Americans have been out of work that long through no fault of their
own--this bill does not provide what I have been pushing for the last
year. That is a new tier five level of unemployment benefits so that
workers who have exhausted their federal and state benefits are able to
feed their families and keep a roof over their head. If we are going to
extend unemployment, let's extend it for all Americans.
This bill is a tax increase for most Americans. While this bill is a
sure-shot tax cut for those people making or inheriting millions of
dollars, for nearly 50 million hard working Americans, this bill is
actually a tax increase. Workers who make less than $20,000 per year
will see a tax increase. And by the way, if you are a federal worker, a
worker who will see a pay freeze over the next two years, if your job
has not been totally eliminated, you will see a tax increase. Finally,
if you work for your state or city government, you will see your taxes
increase because of this bill.
This bill is a woefully inefficient way to create jobs. The
Congressional Budget Office and other non-partisan, objective
organizations have widely stated that tax cuts is, by far, the most
inefficient way to create jobs. At a total cost of over $900 billion,
this bill is expected to lower unemployment by less than one percent.
The most efficient way to create jobs in an economy in which businesses
cannot create them? A federal direct-hire program. I offered such a
program as an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
bill, a program modeled after the successful Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act
[[Page 22444]]
(CETA) that would have immediately put more than one million people
back to work. It was rejected earlier this year.
I proudly voted for the extension of tax breaks for Americans who
make $250,000 or less. I also proudly voted to extend unemployment
benefits for three million American families, and continued to fight
for the addition of a tier five level of unemployment benefits. These
two fiscally sound policies would help reduce our deficit and stabilize
American families during the holiday season and beyond. Unfortunately,
this was apparently not good enough for the Republicans, who
overwhelmingly did not support the preservation of almost three million
jobs in the economic stimulus package, the saving of American
manufacturing through the auto loan program, or the more than $100
billion reduction in our deficit that will be the health care law once
it is fully in effect.
I cannot, and will not, support this fiscally irresponsible bill. It
is my hope and desire that the wisdom of the Congress prevails and we
reject this legislation and start over with a bill that caps the top
level of earnings at $250,000 and adds a tier five level for all of
those individuals who are unemployed and have exhausted their state and
federal benefits. Our children and grandchildren, who have to pay for
these programs, are watching what we do.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I support extending the 2001 and 2003 income tax
cuts for all taxpayers, reducing or even eliminating the estate tax,
and limiting the impact of the alternative minimum tax. If those were
the only issues before us today, I would vote for that package to
reduce the tax burden on Americans.
But this package is a bridge too far and I will vote no. With this
package we are saying ``charge it.'' We aren't even making an attempt
to pay for it. We are voting to add over $857 billion to our Nation's
already massive, nearly $14 trillion debt. This is less than two weeks
after the president's debt commission issued its a report called ``A
Moment of Truth,'' which outlined the looming financial crisis that
threatens the future of our country.
We're accumulating a trillion dollar deficit every year. This year,
we are paying $202 billion a year in interest on our debt. That's
nearly $4 billion a week.
By 2021, we will pay nearly $1 trillion a year solely to service the
debt. One trillion.
That's nearly $19 billion a week or $2.7 billion a day. Two point
seven billion dollars a day just to pay the interest. That is utterly
unsustainable.
And money that goes to paying off the interest, let alone the
principle, on the debt is money that will not be invested in road
construction, or cancer research, or homeland security, or math and
science education.
Over four years ago I came to the House floor to propose an
independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable federal
spending. It would put everything on the table--entitlements, all other
spending and tax policy. The SAFE Commission--short for Securing
America's Future Economy--would operate in an authentic and transparent
way, holding a series of public meetings across the country to hear
from the American people. The commission would send its recommendations
for a way forward to a sustainable economy to Congress, which would be
required to vote up or down.
Senator George Voinovich, who is retiring this year and who has been
a champion of fiscal integrity throughout his career in public service,
was my partner in the Senate as sponsor of the SAFE bill. Congressman
Jim Cooper and I also teamed in the 110th and this Congress to push the
SAFE bill, garnering 118 cosponsors. Joining the effort in the Senate
with Senator Voinovich were Senators Lieberman, Conrad and Gregg.
Senators Conrad and Gregg introduced a similar bill calling for a
deficit commission that became the blueprint for the President's
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and on which
both senators served. On December 3, a bipartisan majority of 11 of the
18 commission members voted to recommend a bold plan to Congress that
would address our Nation's fiscal imbalance by cutting $4 trillion from
the federal budget over the next decade. I commend Senators Coburn,
Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, Gregg, and Representative Spratt for voting to
advance the proposal. They recognize the seriousness of our fiscal
situation and that the Congress needs to develop a plan for action.
The leaders of the bipartisan fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and
former Senator Alan Simpson, wrote to the president and leaders of
Congress:
``Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this Nation's
future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make
tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it's time for leaders in
Washington to do the same.''
Yet today, we see that once again, Washington is punting. Less than
80 hours after the commission's 11 to 7 bipartisan vote, ``this
compromise'' was unveiled at a cost of nearly $1 trillion in borrowed
money. The commission's chairmen told us that ``the era of debt denial
is over.'' Yet the legislation before us today clearly demonstrates
that that is simply not the case.
To quote Senator Coburn's floor statement of December 8:
``What we need to do, Democrats and Republicans and our Independent
colleagues, is recognize the depth and magnitude of our problem right
now. There needs to be a great big time out. Who cares who is in charge
if there is no country to run that can be salvaged? It doesn't matter.
``Economists worldwide and some of the brightest people at Harvard
and MIT, the University of Texas, Pennsylvania, they don't sleep at
night right now. They know we are on the razor-thin edge of falling
over a cliff.
``The fact is, both parties have laid a trap for future generations
by our inaction, our laziness, our arrogance, and a crass desire for
power. We are waterboarding the next generation with debt. We are
drowning them in obligations because we don't have the courage to come
together and address or even debate a real solution. . . . The problem
is so big and so urgent and so necessary that we ought to have [a]
debate. We ought to make sure the American people know the significance
of the problems facing us.''
I couldn't agree more.
On Monday, Moody's Investment Service warned that this legislation
jeopardizes America's coveted AAA credit rating, and could lead to a
negative outlook in as little as two years. For the record, I am
inserting its report.
If our credit rating is downgraded, the cost to borrow money will
rise.
Everything, from a home loan to a car loan to tuition for college to
a credit card bill to interest payments on the debt, will increase. We
will be paying more to sustain, not to improve, our existing quality of
life.
We need look no farther than Europe to see the destructive impact
that results after a nation's financial crisis. There have been riots
in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, and Latvia. Just
Monday, Moody's threatened to further downgrade Spain's credit ratings.
Will there be rioting in the streets here like we are now seeing
abroad?
This House, and the Senate before us, is continuing on its profligate
ways of adding billions of dollars to the nation's credit card, which
has been issued by the banks of China and Saudi Arabia, among others.
More than 46 percent of the U.S. debt held by the public is in
foreign hands. Saudi Arabia was home to the 9/11 terrorists. Saudi
Arabia's Wahhabi brand of Islam is taught in some of the most radical
mosques and madrassas around the world, including along the Pakistan/
Afghanistan border. Saudi Arabia represses women and persecutes
Christians and Jews.
Their textbooks are filled with hateful messages about minority
faiths. Just last month a BBC expose' reveled that Saudi textbooks used
for weekend education programs to teach about 5,000 Muslim children in
Britain, contained claims that ``some Jews were transformed into pigs
and apes . . .'' Further, the books, which again are Saudi national
curriculum, contain ``text and pictures showing the correct way to chop
off the hands and feet of thieves.'' Is this a country we want to be
beholden to?
Or what about communist China, our largest banker, which routinely
violates the basic human rights and religious freedom of its own people
where Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are
jailed for practicing their faith? I've seen how they plundered Tibet
with my own eyes. China was once again in the spotlight recently when
famed dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace prize. China's
response? Place Liu's wife under house arrest, stop other dissidents
from attending the award ceremony in Oslo and place them under tight
surveillance, and indefinitely postpone trade talks with Norway.
The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to
penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign
intelligence organizations. According to the FBI, Chinese intelligence
services ``pose a significant threat both to the national security and
to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets.'' Weapons that
entities of the People's Republic of China supplied to Iran were
``found to have been transferred to terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.'' China is a significant arms supplier and source of
economic strength to the genocidal regime in Sudan. Do we really want
China to be our banker?
[[Page 22445]]
In a February 2010 piece, Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib
wrote, ``the Federal budget deficit has long since graduated from
nuisance to headache to pressing national concern. Now, however, it has
become so large and persistent that it is time to start thinking of it
as something else entirely: A national security threat.''
These foreign countries, with vastly different aims than our own,
could end up negatively influencing U.S. foreign policy by threatening
to dump our currency in the world market. Such actions would not be a
historical anomaly.
Recall 1956 in the Suez Canal crisis, which some believed signaled
the end of Britain and France as world powers. Egypt announced that it
was going to nationalize the canal, which outraged the British and
French, who then devised a plan to use military force to keep control.
The U.S. wanted to avert conflict at any cost. And President Eisenhower
threatened to sell the U.S. reserves of the British pound, which would
essentially result in the collapse of the British currency. The British
changed course, demonstrating the power, the impact, that economic
manipulation can have on foreign policy.
Is it conceivable to imagine the Saudis threatening to dump our
currency if we don't withdraw from the region? Is it conceivable to
imagine China threatening to dump our currency if we don't stop
pressing nuclear-armed North Korea?
Simply put, we are presently borrowing hundreds of billions of
dollars from countries which pursue aims that are at odds with our
national interest and values, both directly and indirectly.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has pointed to our nation's
debt as a national security risk. It is expected that, as early as
2014, our nation will spend more on interest payments than was spent on
the 2010 defense budget. In case you missed that, we will pay more to
borrow money than we will pay to defend our freedom.
This is a package full of numerous perks to sweeten the deal. As the
Wall Street Journal editorial, ``The Hawkeye Handouts,'' noted on
December 13, Republicans ``should worry that the tax bill is turning
into a special interest spectacle. The bill revives a $1 a gallon
biodiesel tax credit at a cost of nearly $2 billion, and there's $202
million for `incentives for alternative fuel,' $331 million for a 50%
tax credit for maintaining railroad tracks, and so on. These credits
are a form of special interest spending via the tax code, which is
precisely the business as usual behavior that Republicans told tea
party voters they wouldn't engage in.''
Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported yesterday that ``. . . the
ethanol provision . . . has cost taxpayers more than $21 billion since
2006. The Government Accountability Office recently concluded that the
credit has had little impact in encouraging ethanol use or production,
especially since the government already mandates rising levels of
ethanol in gasoline and protects the corn ethanol industry through
tariffs.''
From farmers producing ethanol to Puerto Ricans making rum to film
producers in Hollywood, there's something for everyone. Even worse, the
payroll tax holiday raids, for the first time in our history, the
Social Security trust fund, which is already going broke. No one comes
away empty handed.
This is, as Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post on
December 10, nothing more than a stimulus by another name--an unfunded
stimulus that costs considerably more than the President's stimulus of
2009 that so many on my side of the aisle opposed.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget, hit the nail on the head in an October 2009 National Journal
article when she said, ``It's like fiscal jenga, where people are
piling on more and more debt, and finally, something's going to be the
cause of it collapsing, but no one believes their thing is going to be
the tipping point.''
This package could be the ``thing'' that takes us closer to the
tipping point.
Candidly, I have never been more concerned about our country's
future. We see a nation whose young people are lagging behind their
peers globally. We see a Senate debating a $1.1 trillion omnibus
spending measure containing over 6,000 earmarks representing over $8
billion worth of spending. We see a Congress and a president embracing
a tax package that risks our nation's highly valued AAA bond rating.
All the while we see young men and women in uniform, in distant places
like Afghanistan and Iraq, modeling the sort of sacrifice that few
Americans even expect from their elected leaders any more.
Only through shared sacrifice can we hope to walk back from the
precipice. But instead of asking for sacrifice, the measure before us
today provides something for everyone. Maybe not as much as everyone
wanted, but what was truly sacrificed? The word compromise implies that
both sides in the negotiation give up something. No one gave up
anything. Legislation of this magnitude must be balanced by reforms.
But instead of reforms we see recklessness. This legislation walks us
further down the path to greater and greater deficits and debt that can
only lead to a place none of us wants to go--a bankrupt America. I
cannot in good conscience leave that type of country to my children and
grandchildren.
At his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his fellow
countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the
burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''
Enough is enough. I vote ``no.''
[From Moody's Weekly Credit Outlook, Dec. 13, 2010]
US Tax Package Is Negative for US Credit, but Positive for Economic
Growth
If the tax and unemployment-benefit package agreed to on 6
December by President Obama and congressional Republican
leaders becomes law, it will boost economic growth in the
next two years, but adversely affect the federal government
budget deficit and debt level. From a credit perspective, the
negative effects on government finance are likely to outweigh
the positive effects of higher economic growth. Unless there
are offsetting measures, the package will be credit negative
for the US and increase the likelihood of a negative outlook
on the US government's Aaa rating during the next two years
One motivation for the two-year extension of the current
personal income tax rates (put in place in 2001 and 2003 and
referred to as the ``Bush tax cuts'') is to prevent a setback
to economic and employment growth that would result from
higher taxes beginning on 1 January, the expiration date of
the earlier tax cuts. Keeping the existing tax rates would
not provide an impetus to growth, but raising them would have
a negative effect. However, the package also includes, among
other things, an extension of unemployment benefits for the
long-term unemployed through 2011 and a two-percentage-point
cut in the Social Security payroll tax. The latter two
measures will give a boost to economic and employment growth
in the coming two years, with some forecasters significantly
raising their GDP growth numbers in 2011 and 2012.
Higher economic growth should have a positive effect on
government revenues and reduce payments related to
unemployment. However, the magnitude of this positive effect
will be considerably less than the foregone revenue and
increased benefit expenditure, resulting in substantially
higher budget deficits than would have otherwise been the
case. The Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate
of the deficit for fiscal year 2011 was $1.1 trillion, or 7%
of GDP, assuming no expiration of the tax cuts, and $665
billion (4.2%) in fiscal year 2012. These deficits would
raise the ratio of government debt to GDP to 68.5% by the end
of fiscal year 2012, compared with 61.6% two years earlier.
The net cost of the proposed package of tax-cut extensions,
payroll-tax reductions, unemployment benefits, and some other
measures may be $700-$900 billion, raising the debt ratio to
72%-73%, depending on the effects on nominal economic growth.
The government's ratio of debt to revenue, instead of
declining rather steeply over the two years from about 420%
at the end of fiscal year 2010, would decline considerably
less to somewhere just under 400%. This is a very high ratio
compared with both history and other highly rated sovereigns.
Thus, while higher growth and lower unemployment are
clearly good for the economy, the package is negative for US
government debt metrics. In addition, there is a risk that
the two-year extension may be renewed at the end of 2012,
given that that period coincides with a presidential
election. A permanent extension of the tax cuts alone
(without other measures) could result in a considerable
increase in deficits and debt levels unless other measures to
reduce deficits are adopted. The exhibit below illustrates
that the fiscal balance in the coming decade would be
considerably higher under such a scenario, all other things
being equal, and this would result in a worsening of the
government's debt position. A package of options put forth by
the fiscal commission at the beginning of this month provides
a menu of such measures that would reverse these trends, but
their adoption remains uncertain.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I recently voted again in favor of H.R. 4853,
the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, legislation which ensures the
continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts, fixes the AMT patch, and
significantly reduces the burden of the estate tax in 2011. If no
action had been taken by this Congress, all Americans would have had to
pay higher income, dividend, estate, and capital gains taxes beginning
on January 1, 2011. I will always vote to lower taxes at all levels,
and I will never vote for tax increases.
[[Page 22446]]
Many opponents of this bill labor under the mistaken impression that
it contains huge amounts of pork, earmarks, and other spending. What
they are referring to is hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax
credits. Tax credits are not spending, they are not earmarks, they are
not pork: they merely allow people to keep more of their own money.
While the Administration's desire in extending these particular credits
may be to placate certain constituencies or to spur consumption or
investment into certain sectors of the economy, the morally correct
position is to allow people to keep their hard-earned money. That money
belongs to the people and businesses who earned it, not to the
government. If one wants to make it more equitable, then the amount of
tax credits should be increased to include everyone.
Characterizing the tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible, as other
opponents of the bill have done, is equally misguided. Those who wish
to see this deal defeated because it ``adds nearly $900 billion to the
National Debt'' are punishing taxpayers for the profligacy of the
government. The National Debt is nearly $14 trillion because of
excessive spending, not because of tax cuts. Every dollar added to the
National Debt is due to the government's inability to rein in spending,
not because American taxpayers are paying too little of their salaries
to the Federal Government. This is why I vote against all
appropriations bills. Allowing taxes to rise and provide more money to
the federal government would only serve to further feed the beast that
is devouring this country.
This bill also reduces the burden of the estate tax, which according
to law is set to return in 2011. This unconscionable tax is an
insidious form of double taxation and comes into effect in 2011 with a
55 percent tax rate. Americans should not be penalized for accumulating
savings during their lifetimes. The estate tax especially harms small
and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax
bill. H.R. 4853 reduces this death tax rate from 55 percent to 35
percent, and raises the exemption from $1 million to $5 million. While
I would prefer to see this tax eliminated completely, this significant
tax cut will help thousands of families.
Many people have urged that this tax bill be rejected and that
Republicans come back in January to vote on a clean bill. Waiting until
the next Congress would also mean that taxpayers would have much more
of their salary withheld until any tax cuts could be made. While it is
certainly possible to wait until January, we still have a Democratic
Senate, and a Democratic president who would likely veto a clean tax
bill. I too would prefer to see a completely clean bill, but that is
not what we have been given. A vote against the bill before us today
would be a vote to raise taxes on all Americans.
Much of the debate about this bill only serves to distract people
from discussing substantive change and lead to argument about picayune
minutiae. I believe we should abolish the income tax and eliminate the
IRS altogether. Congress funded the government using excise taxes for
more than 120 years without an income tax, and the Federal Government
not surprisingly adhered much more closely to the constitutionally-
defined limits of its powers during that time. Real tax reform can only
happen when we insist on reducing the size of the Federal Government
and reducing the pork in its bloated budget.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Tax Relief Act
of 2010 and urge its passage.
My Colleagues, the goal of this legislation is to prevent the
imposition of the largest tax increase in the history of the world and
to continue many valuable tax provisions that promote economic growth.
These goals are my goals. There Is never a good time to raise taxes,
but I cannot think of a worse time to increase the tax burden on
America's hard-working families and job-creating small businesses than
in the middle of a weak recovery.
Like all Members, I have strongly supported extending the Bush tax
rates, enacted in 2001 and 2003.
Like some of my Colleagues, I have supported extending these lower
tax rates for everyone and making that extension permanent. That's why
I introduced H.R. 4270 which would lock in these lower tax rates
indefinitely.
The important legislation before us today includes many beneficial
provisions. For example, the agreement:
Prevents tax increases on every American who pays income taxes.
Eliminates job-killing tax increases on small businesses.
Provides relief from the estate tax for family owned businesses.
Preserves the $1,000 per child tax credit and marriage penalty
relief.
Blocks higher taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Protects at least 21 million households, including 1.6 million in New
Jersey, from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in 2010.
Provides a one-year payroll tax cut that is worth $1,400 for the
average New Jersey household.
I must acknowledge that I am not pleased that this bill prevents a
tax hike on higher income Americans and small businessmen and women,
which would have taken effect on New Year's Day 2011, for only two
years.
Our economy does not run on temporary, stop-gap half-measures. In
order to invest and grow their companies for the future--creating
private sector jobs and opportunities in the process--businesses of all
sizes need predictability in the tax code. They need certainty in order
to plan their operations and workforce expansion. In order to spur job
creation, all the tax rates should be extended as far as the eye can
see!
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that fully
extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rates would add between 600,000 and 1.4
million private sector jobs in 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million
jobs in 2012. In addition, lower tax rates on capital gains and
dividends will boost capital investment and spur economic growth.
I also have strong reservations about some of the spending included
in this bill and some of the so-called tax extensions.
For example, the package extends the federal Unemployment insurance
(UI) Program for another 13 months and maintains the current cap of 99
weeks of total benefits.
I understand that people need a helping hand and strongly support
aiding unemployed Americans. However, the President has insisted that
the cost of extending benefits be added to the country's $14 trillion
debt. We can do better than this. The fact is that we CAN help the
long-term unemployed AND pay for it.
Likewise, we should object to certain so-called ``tax extenders''
such as the renewed subsidies for the production and use of corn
ethanol. For yet another year, $6 billion will be extracted from U.S.
taxpayers to prop up the struggling ethanol industry while diverting
valuable corn supplies from other worthwhile uses.
Despite these and other reasons, I will support this bipartisan
agreement. I recognize that a ``no'' vote on this bill represents a
``no'' vote on the U.S. economy.
It would be nothing short of a disaster to allow the largest tax
increase in U.S. history to crush American families and small business
in two short weeks.
Mr. Chair, the larger debate surrounding extension of the lower Bush
tax rates underscores the need for Congress to act decisively in the
New Year to support private sector job creation, reduce government
spending, lower our dangerous public debt and enact permanent tax
reform.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, when most people borrow money--and go into
debt--it's either for survival or for an investment that will pay off
in the future.
Borrowing $114 billion from China to give massive tax breaks to the
wealthiest Americans meets neither of those goals.
Over the last ten years, while economic growth has stalled and middle
class wages have stagnated, the wealthy have been doing just fine. In
fact, two-thirds of all the income gains made in this country over the
last ten years have gone to the wealthiest one percent. And the top one
percent now owns more financial wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
They clearly don't need any more help to get ahead.
This $114 billion tax giveaway to the rich is not an investment in
our economy.
Just look at what happened in the decade that followed the passage of
these cuts in 2001.
Even if you exclude the beginning of the recession, we saw the
slowest economic growth since World War 2: fewer jobs created, fewer
businesses started, fewer dollars injected into our economy.
So where did all that money go? Into the bank accounts of the
wealthiest few. When their taxes were cut, they banked three times as
much money than before. More money was stashed away rather than--as
some would have you believe--put into business expansion or job
creation.
That's why the Congressional Budget Office ranked an extension of
these tax breaks LAST among the options we have to help grow the
economy and create jobs.
There are things in this proposal that are about survival, like an
extension of unemployment insurance to help the families hit hardest by
this recession. There are investments, like the tax credits that will
help small businesses expand.
But unfortunately--and ultimately--the long-term costs of this bill
are far more damaging to our nation than these short-term gains.
[[Page 22447]]
Borrowing money to give tax cuts to the rich--tax cuts that are more
than most families make in a year--is unconscionable.
Economics shows this is a dead-end. History proves it would be
disastrous. And basic morality dictates that our priorities should
focus on making our economy work for EVERYONE--not just the wealthy
few.
I urge my colleagues to join me in standing against this proposal and
its unacceptable price and yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, our economy is still very weak:
over 75 percent of American workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
The unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent, and over eight million
Americans are subsisting on unemployment insurance benefits while they
search for work. In Georgia alone, the unemployment rate is over 10
percent. 67,000 additional Georgians filed for unemployment insurance
last month. Despite these sobering numbers, our nation is on a
dangerous path toward the largest tax increase in over a decade if we
do not approve this vital legislation before us today.
We must not let this happen. We must change course. Our nation's
workers, retirees, businesses, and job-seekers simply cannot afford the
crushing burden of new taxes in today's economy. Raising taxes in this
economic environment would stifle investment, slow down job creation,
and put severe financial strain on businesses and individuals.
This bipartisan legislation confronts this reality. It temporarily
continues the Bush Tax Cuts for the benefit of all Americans. It
provides a desperately needed extension of unemployment insurance
benefits. It reduces the crushing burden of the estate tax on our
nation's family farms and businesses. And it puts money back into the
paychecks of America's workers.
I urge my colleagues to take action and vote to send this legislation
to the President's desk. Now is the time to act. We owe it to our
constituents and to our nation not to let their taxes go up on New
Year's Day.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I will vote for this tax package that is
before us tonight.
While there is absolutely no reason to justify or defend the
extension of the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and the
unconscionable tax treatment of wealthy estates--both of which were
insisted upon by the Republicans--those egregious giveaways to those
who need or deserve it least are, in fact, more than balanced by
generous support for tens of millions of households across the country.
I will vote for the Pomeroy amendment to restore the estate tax to
sensible levels. There is no justification for massive estate tax
relief for the Nation's 6,600 wealthiest families, at a cost of $25
billion to America's taxpayers.
Despite continuing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000
per year, and despite the estate tax provisions, this initiative,
forged by President Obama, does a lot of good.
We are extending unemployment insurance for 13 more months. It is
desperately needed by those who simply cannot find jobs after being out
of work for months.
We are providing continued income tax rate relief for two years for
the middle class.
The payroll tax holiday is an enormously progressive reform at a time
when it is most needed to boost take home pay.
The extension of the child tax credit and the tuition tax credit in
particular will greatly assist income security for American families.
The green energy tax provisions will help create jobs and promote clean
energy technology.
The bottom line is: This economy needs more jobs. We need to get
unemployment down and growth up. Working Americans need more cash in
their pockets. The economy needs a major jolt to go forward.
This package delivers on these urgent needs.
While I take no pride in any vote to give unearned financial rewards
to the very wealthiest among us, I cannot in good conscience be party
to legislative deadlock that means only one thing: millions of people
cut off from unemployment insurance before Christmas, and a big tax hit
on the middle class and working Americans as the new year begins. If we
do not act, they will suffer grievously. That must not be permitted to
happen.
I must point out that the fact that the tax cuts last only two years
and will not be permanently extended is a major plus for me. When our
economy recovers, our high priority to reduce the deficit will require
us to both cut spending and raise revenues. I am pleased the President
has pledged that he will not further extend or make permanent the upper
income tax cuts.
I support the President's proposals, and urge my colleagues to join
in supporting this legislation.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R 4853,
legislation based on the agreement between the White House and
Congressional Republican leaders that calls for borrowing nearly $1
trillion over the next two years.
Further, I am appalled that the unemployed are being held hostage in
order to ram the flawed measure through Congress. And I have yet to
find the equity in extending tax cuts for 24 months, but the solvency
of the unemployment fund for 13 months.
I oppose borrowing nearly 1 trillion over the next two years when we
have a debt today of $13.8 trillion.
I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years when
our projected deficit for Fiscal Year 2011 is $1.1 trillion.
I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years when we
will pay $438 billion in interest on the national debt this year alone.
I can't imagine what this figure will look like when interest rates
inevitably head higher.
I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years for an
agreement that fundamentally weakens Social Security through a payroll
tax ``holiday.'' The holiday means we will be paying less money than
anticipated into Social Security, thus reducing its solvency. In
fairness, we're told that the government will ``find'' the money to
make up the loss. Where?
But what's the big deal if this is only temporary? If the debate
around the expiration of the Bush tax cuts has taught us anything, it
is that, fair or not, a so-called ``temporary'' tax cut can be quickly
re-characterized as an impending tax hike.
If Members of Congress and the President do not have the intestinal
fortitude to make thoughtful, tough, permanent decisions today, do you
think they will with Presidential and Congressional elections looming
next December? I believe the decisions made this week will become
permanent, fundamentally weakening our country.
I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years because
we have a desperate need for investment in our nation's roads, bridges,
ports, railroads, and water services. Just three months ago, the
infrastructure in the state of Indiana received a grade of D+ from the
Indiana section of the American Society of Civil Engineers in a report
that identified a need for billions of dollars in safety and service
upgrades. Next year, because of this agreement, we'll be told we just
don't have any money left to invest.
Not all the provisions in this agreement are bad. There are many good
ones, including making a decision about estate taxes. But they are not
all of equal merit. better approach would have been to examine each tax
provision and approve those that encouraged savings and investment the
most, then pay for them, and make them permanent.
But no, let's hold the unemployed hostage. Let's borrow nearly $1
trillion over the next 2 years. Let's reduce the solvency of Social
Security. Let's further disinvest in our nation's intellectual and
economic infrastructure.
Robin Hood stole from the rich for others. We're stealing from our
children for ourselves. My first grade teacher, Sister Marlene, would
be ashamed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I regret that I must rise in opposition to
the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. Today's legislation is
fiscally irresponsible and recklessly extends Bush era tax cuts for the
rich, the millionaires and billionaires, and establishes an extremely
low estate tax rate. However, I am supportive of efforts to extend
unemployment benefits.
To add insult to injury, this bill includes not one, but two bailouts
for the ultra wealthy. In addition to extending income tax cuts for the
rich, this bill reduces the estate tax from 55 percent to 35 percent
next year. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a
few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of
billions to the national debt.
I was also dismayed an increase to the debt ceiling was not included
in today's proposal. Congress will have to vote to increase the debt
ceiling next year. Many in this body would like to hold the debt
ceiling vote hostage and demand massive spending cuts and or make the
Bush tax cuts permanent in exchange for their votes. We need to show
the American people that tax cuts for the wealthy are not free and that
they add huge amounts to the national debt.
Just a few weeks ago, this chamber voted separately to extend both
middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits to those who lost their
jobs through no fault of their own. While I agree that we need to
protect the most vulnerable, the unemployed and working families who
need every cent during this time of economic malaise, it is
irresponsible to continue Bush era tax rates for wealthy Americans,
which are neither justified nor needed, for the next two years.
Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts for rich
[[Page 22448]]
have helped the economy in any tangible way. The Act will steal
hundreds of billions of dollars of needed revenue for America's fiscal
future.
This compromise bill also includes a two percent employee-side
payroll tax cut that I fear will weaken the Social Security trust fund.
Today's proposal would deny over $120 billion each year to the Social
Security fund and make it easier for conservatives to weaken Social
Security's revenue streams in the future. I support giving working
Americans extra cash in their pay check, but it should not be taken
away from the Social Security trust fund.
Last week, I stated that this tax compromise was a fight for the
heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Democrats have always stood for
the workers, the disenfranchised, and those who are denied the
opportunity to compete for the blessings of the American Dream because
of their race, creed, religion, or class. I fear that passage of this
bill tonight will tarnish this proud legacy of our party and cause the
98 percent of Americans without estates or astronomical personal wealth
to question which party will fight for them. If this bill passes, each
and every member of this body should look themselves in the mirror and
consider what we have lost in the name of compromise. I encourage my
colleagues to reject this flawed bill.''
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4853 was negotiated in the dead of
night, and I am outraged by the take-it-or-leave tactics employed to
ram this legislation through the House, no less in a lame-duck session.
This is not how good legislation is produced, and I am convinced we
will feel the repercussions of this for years.
In considering H.R. 4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010,
members of the House of Representatives confront the tragic choice of
extending unemployment benefits and current middle-class tax rates at
the price of enormous tax give-aways to millionaires and fat cats on
Wall Street. At a time when American corporations are making record
earnings and giving million-dollar holiday bonuses, we are extending
tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans for two years but
extending unemployment insurance for only 13 months. This greatly
frustrates me, and I believe we must do more to help working families.
Equally distressing is the fact that this lop-sided agreement hides
another, more insidious provision that could promise to do future
violence to the federal program upon which millions of senior citizens
in this country rely for their very existence, namely Social Security.
I am somewhat comforted, however, that H.R. 4853 clearly mandates the
shortfall in revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund caused by the
bill's one-year payroll tax holiday be made whole with a transfer from
the Treasury's General Fund. This measure is designed ostensibly to
provide Americans with more take-home pay to spend or save as they see
fit, but it earns only my hesitant backing for fear that Republicans
will attempt to make this provision permanent when it expires next
year. Such a move can only be seen as the first step leading to what my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want most: privatizing Social
Security.
While I maintain my strong reservations about portions of this tax
package that benefit only the wealthiest two percent of all Americans,
my colleagues and I cannot in good conscience return to our districts
without having secured an extension of unemployment benefits and
existing tax rates for middle-class families so aggrieved by the
current recession. The good people of the 15th District need the
stability of assured unemployment benefits to help get them through
this holiday season, giving them time until they find stable
employment.
Now is one of the times when it is ultimately better for our
government leaders to come together on common ground where it can be
found, instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.
In this case, the government is taking real action to stimulate the
economy and help those desperately in need. Democrats are making the
choice to protect millions of Americans struggling to keep food on the
table and keep the heat on while searching hard for a job. According to
the Center for American Progress, the tax deal would save or create 2.2
million jobs through 2012. In Michigan, the importance of the
unemployment extension cannot be overstated. In November 2011, almost
300,000 Michiganders will lose their unemployment benefits without
federal action. These are real numbers, and this is real money that
will have a positive impact on our economy at a time when it is
desperately needed.
Absent a better choice, I will vote in favor of H.R. 4853. I do so as
Dean of this House and the proud son of a man who helped pass the
Social Security Act but demand my colleagues' sacred vow that this
bill's payroll tax holiday never again be extended. To do so would be
an indefensible assault on the economic and social progress achieved by
generations of working-class Americans. I assure you, Madam Speaker and
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I will do everything in
power to make sure Social Security is protected from rascality and
available for not only current recipients, but also their children and
grandchildren.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chair, Americans spoke clearly on November
second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become
better stewards of their tax dollars. After endless talk throughout
this session about fiscal responsibility, the looming threat of a
growing deficit and forcing America's next generation into crushing
debt to China--a so-called tax deal has been produced. Today this House
will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion
dollars.
While this package includes several programs I have proudly
supported, I cannot support the underlying bill. As recently as last
week I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle
class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families,
consumers and small business owners who drive our economy. I have
consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the
families struggling in this difficult recession. I have voted to extend
the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to assist our
nation's low-income families who have a difficult enough time making
ends meet as it is. I have consistently voted in for ethanol and
biodiesel tax credits that sustain the growth of our nation's renewable
energy industry and support the jobs of thousands of my constituents in
Iowa.
Those were some of the good things included in this deal.
Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad
things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures
to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to
support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax
break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a
bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an
average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a
year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of
social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security
contributions.
I'm voting ``no'' on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the
can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the
deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial
stability of our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
``no.''
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my
concerns regarding the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010.
The American economy is slowly recovering from the worst recession
we've seen since the Great Depression. While there has been some
improvement, the economy is still fragile, and we need to ensure that
our tax policy for the near future supports job growth if we are to
continue on this path of recovery.
Unfortunately, the tax package that the Senate has sent us today does
not support the creation of new jobs.
The United States is quickly being surpassed by other countries in
infrastructure and clean energy investments. Rather than supporting tax
policies to reverse this trend, the Senate's tax package focuses on tax
cuts for the wealthiest in our population and old energy sources that
do not present great possibilities for our future.
While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made
important strides in closing that gap, this legislation is a step
backwards. The Senate's tax package includes a one year extension of
the Treasury Grant Program enacted in section 1603 of ARRA that allows
renewable energy companies to receive a cash grant in lieu of either
the production or investment tax credit. The Program was designed to
allow renewable energy projects to continue while investor demands for
tax credits lagged in a sluggish economy. Unfortunately, a one year
extension is insufficient to ensure a steady stream of investment in
renewable energy projects and may stall the momentum we've built in
creating a strong, green economy.
Further, the tax package fails to include the Advanced Energy
Manufacturing Tax Credit from ARRA, a program that was immensely
useful. The tax credit was created to expand domestic clean energy
manufacturing. America needs to rebuild its manufacturing base to
compete in the global marketplace. The Manufacturing Tax Credit is
crucial to laying a foundation for the United States to be a leader in
the clean energy manufacturing industry.
[[Page 22449]]
The failure to extend these critical programs will have negative
economic impact across the country and in my district in San Jose. As a
Member from Silicon Valley, I represent many renewable energy and
energy efficiency companies that are currently utilizing these credits
to create jobs and stimulate the economy. By not including robust
renewable energy programs as part of our tax policy, we are failing to
invest in our economic future, and for that reason, I am unable to vote
for the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job
Creation Act of 2010.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chair, despite the clear message sent by the
American people in November, the Obama Administration and the Pelosi
Congress continue to borrow and spend like there is no tomorrow.
In another attempt to bring some fiscal responsibility back to this
Congress, I submitted an amendment yesterday in the House Rules
Committee that would seek $149 billion in cuts to offset the $95
billion in new spending in H.R. 4853, the so-called Middle Class Tax
Relief Act of 2010.
While I am glad to see this bill temporarily stop the Democrats from
raising the income tax rates of every American, I am disappointed that
it includes a massive increase in the estate tax that will hurt the
families, farmers and small business owners in my district and across
America.
I am further disappointed that the new spending in this bill will add
to the deficit, further burdening our children and grandchildren with
debt that must be repaid. We cannot continue to grow our debt and by
loading well-intentioned bills with billions of extra dollars in
borrowing and spending.
My amendment would do what the American people are demanding we do:
stop the out-of-control federal spending! By returning non-defense
appropriations spending to FY 2008 levels, we will realize an immediate
savings of $80 billion. By repealing the remaining stimulus funds, we
save another $69 billion.
Tacking more spending on to bills is a hallmark of Washington
politics. It has landed us in record-high debt. We must break away from
this trap with a commitment to passing clean bills and eliminating
excess waste.
Add at the end of the bill the following:
TITLE __--APPROPRIATIONS AT LOWER PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR LEVELS
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out
of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and
funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations,
and other organizational units of Government for fiscal year
2011, and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. __. (a) The amounts provided in the appropriations
Acts for fiscal year 2008 referred to in section 101 of
division A of Public Law 110-329 and under the authority and
conditions provided in such Acts for projects or activities
(including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees)
that are not otherwise provided for, that were conducted in
fiscal years 2008 and 2010, and for which appropriations,
funds, or other authority were made available in such Acts.
(b) If the amount provided for a project or activity by
subsection (a) would be higher than the amount provided in
appropriation Acts for fiscal year 2010, such project or
activity shall be funded at the lower such amount.
Sec. __. There is hereby enacted into law the provisions
of the following:
(1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011, as
reported in the 111th Congress by the Subcommittee on Defense
of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2011, as reported in the 111th Congress by the Subcommittee
on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
(3) The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, as passed in the
111th Congress by the House of Representatives.
Sec. __. Appropriations made by section __ shall be
available to the extent and in the manner that would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. __. Unless otherwise provided for in the applicable
appropriations Act, appropriations and funds made available
and authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution shall
be available through September 30, 2011.
Sec. __. For entitlements and other mandatory payments
whose budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts
for fiscal year 2010, and for activities under the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008, activities shall be continued at the
rate to maintain program levels under current law, under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, to be continued
through the date specified in section 104.
Sec. __. Funds appropriated by this joint resolution may
be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 10 of
Public Law 91-672 (22 U.S.C. 2412), section 15 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2680),
section 313 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 6212), and section
504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414(a)(1)).
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this joint
resolution may be used to carry out any program under,
promulgate any regulation pursuant to, or defend against any
lawsuit challenging any provision of, Public Law 111-148 or
Public Law 111-152 or any amendment made by either such
Public Law.
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this joint
resolution may be used for a congressional earmark as defined
in clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Further, add at the end of the bill the following:
TITLE __--ARRA RESCISSION AND REPEALS
SEC. __. ARRA RESCISSION AND REPEALS.
(a) Rescission.--Of the discretionary appropriations made
available in division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), all unobligated
balances are rescinded.
(b) Repeals.--Subtitles B and C of title II and titles III
through VII of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) are repealed.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4853, the Tax
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of
2010.
Santa Claus is arriving early for a handful of wealthy individuals
and industries this year. Wall Street should be throwing a parade
today. They can certainly afford one after the President failed to
uphold one of his signature campaign promises of letting tax breaks for
the rich expire as planned.
We hear a lot of hand wringing about the deficit, but this
``compromise'' extends all of the Bush tax cuts for the next 2 years,
adding hundreds of billions to the deficit so that millionaires won't
have to pay their fair share of taxes. It also includes billions of
deficit financed tax favors to special interests. No one who votes for
this package has any credibility left when talking about the deficit.
This bill is skewed toward the very wealthy. According to the Tax
Policy Center, the biggest share of the tax cuts will go to the richest
families, many with incomes of several million dollars. Households in
the top 1 percent of income will see an average tax break that is
higher than the annual income of nearly 80 percent of American
families. The distribution of the tax savings is disproportionate and
just unfair. The wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers are going to get 60
percent of the tax savings from this extension.
The handouts to the ultra-rich will follow them to the grave.
Thousands of millionaires will now be able to die with the confidence
that their assets will not be impacted by the estate tax. Without
Congressional action, the 44,000 wealthiest families would have paid
the estate tax in 2011. Now that the administration has agreed to the
most generous estate tax plan in recent history--a $5 million exemption
and 35 percent rate--only the wealthiest 3,600 estates are expected to
pay the estate tax in 2011. The theme here is clear: the rich will
continue to hold more and more wealth and power in this country while
the middle class is warned that it will have to accept cuts to Social
Security and Medicare in order to balance the budget.
Every business interest imaginable will get their piece of the pie.
The corn ethanol industry, which is already guaranteed a robust market
by the federal government, will continue to be showered with subsidies
to the tune of $6 billion a year. You would be mistaken if you think
this handout helps farmers. It is actually paid to the oil companies
that blend the ethanol--BP claimed over $500 million from the credit in
2008 alone. And the list goes on. Owners of NASCAR speedways will be
able to accelerate their tax write-offs faster than other businesses,
rum makers will get an extension of tariff rebates and Hollywood
studios will get tax breaks when they produce movies and television
shows.
There are good things for working families in this agreement, but
they pale in comparison to the gifts to the upper class. Extended
Unemployment Insurance benefits will be continued for 13 months and
spare millions of Americans from losing their income, allowing them to
keep food on their tables and a roof over their heads. Extending
improvements made to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax
Credit made by the Recovery Act also makes sense and will help many
families.
A payroll tax holiday will put money into the pockets of people who
need it most, but I worry what this will mean for the future of Social
Security. The provision also unfairly leaves out thousands of federal
workers and teachers in my state of California. It is sad that we have
to hand out several hundred billion
[[Page 22450]]
dollars worth of benefits for millionaires just to find the votes to
help working families make ends meet.
Two weeks ago I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010
that would have extended tax cuts for middle class Americans. I also
voted to extend Unemployment Benefits for working people. Those are the
bills we should be sending to the President. But the legislation before
us today is a colossus, burying those benefits for Americans struggling
to keep a roof over their heads underneath billions in blatant handouts
to the wealthiest taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to defeat this
legislation.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in qualified support
of this tax cut agreement. I do so only after carefully weighing its
positive elements against its severe flaws and with a realistic sense
of the dire consequences should the measure fail.
This conclusion says as much about the gamesmanship of our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle--and, I'm afraid, about what we can
expect in the next Congress--as it does about the contents of the
legislation. No program or priority has been too sacred for House and
Senate Republicans to hold hostage in their fervor to extend President
Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of how many
hard-working families have had to suffer in the process. Programs that
have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support--such as unemployment
insurance and small business tax credits--have suddenly become
``Democratic'' priorities, fair game to be stonewalled by Republicans
until they could squeeze every last concession out of this deal.
The disconnect between what they say and what they do should be
painfully obvious to the American people. How does their support for
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires square with their stated
priorities of balancing the budget and growing the economy? Spending
$130 billion over the next 2 years alone on tax cuts for the richest 2
percent of Americans--without paying for a cent of it--is certainly a
strange way to demonstrate their fiscal discipline. And it's also the
least effective step we can take to spur the economy. If economic
recovery were really the goal, they would have extended unemployment
insurance the first chance they had, because nothing plows money back
into the economy more effectively.
If this is where the Republican Party's true priorities lie, then I
have never been prouder to be a Democrat. I have never been prouder to
stand up for hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs and cannot
find a new one by assuring them that their unemployment insurance will
not expire. I have never been prouder to stand up for middle-class
families who have seen their savings depleted and cannot afford to have
their taxes raised during an economic downturn. To stand up for small
businesses by giving them the certainty and support they need to grow
and prosper. And to stand up for future generations by allowing
expensive tax cuts that benefit only the wealthiest while doing nothing
to stimulate the economy to expire on schedule, so that we can finally
get back on track toward a balanced budget.
Two weeks ago, this House approved, with my strong support, a bill
that would have done all of these things. This earlier version of the
legislation before us today would have given all American families a
permanent tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income, including
capital gains and dividends; it would have extended AMT relief, the
enhanced EITC, and the enhanced child tax credit; and it would have
maintained critical expensing provisions to encourage small businesses
to invest. Simply put, this bill would have provided tax relief to
those who need it most, and with the maximum economic impact. Yet our
Republican colleagues dismissed it as a ``symbolic'' vote.
Since then, the measure has been amended substantially to reflect the
negotiations that have occurred between the White House and
Congressional leaders. The result is a much more expansive package that
has many positive elements but also major negative ones. It is also an
expensive package, adding over $850 billion to the deficit over the
next decade. This cost is only justifiable to the extent that the
legislation is both effective as an economic stimulus and equitable in
its benefits, and each of its provisions should be subjected to these
criteria.
On the positive side, the measure will extend unemployment insurance
through the end of next year. This is both a moral obligation and a
sound economic decision: there is perhaps no greater return on our
investment in the short run than to ensure that Americans who have lost
their jobs and cannot find another one can continue to make ends meet.
At the same time, they put almost all of this money back into the
economy, maintaining aggregate demand for goods and services--in stark
contrast to tax cuts for the wealthy.
The agreement maintains the historically low tax rates that lower-
and middle-income Americans have enjoyed for the past decade for 2 more
years. While doing so will not be cheap, we cannot afford to raise
taxes on working families during the current downturn, and the
stimulative impact of these extensions will be significant. It also
extends several tax credits targeted directly at lower- and middle-
income Americans, including the refundable child tax credit, the
enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit, and important credits or deductions
for child care, education, and other essential services. The fact that
the child tax credit is refundable for low-income people whose income
tax liability is limited will provide a particularly important boost to
them and to our economic recovery.
In addition, the package offers critical relief to small businesses,
including an extension of the bonus depreciation provision included in
the Recovery Act, a 2-year extension of the Research and Development
tax credit so critical to the Research Triangle, and several important
renewable energy incentives. These and other provisions will provide
business owners with the stability and support they need to expand
their operations, hire new workers, and continue the economic recovery.
Finally, the legislation includes a payroll tax holiday that will
result in a lower tax burden for all American workers next year. Some
respected advocates, in North Carolina and elsewhere, have argued that
this provision could in fact hurt lower-income workers, compared to the
Making Work Pay tax credit that expires this year. Some have also
claimed that this provision would threaten Social Security by
temporarily reducing payments to the Social Security trust fund.
To be clear, if I had my choice I would prefer to be voting for an
extension of Making Work Pay instead of a payroll tax holiday--but that
is not the choice we face today. The choice is between a payroll tax
holiday and nothing, and the simple fact is that if we do nothing, then
lower-income workers will be much worse off than they are now: their
income taxes will be higher; they will lose the many other benefits
this bill provides, such as enhanced EITC; and they won't receive any
form of payroll tax relief. Moreover, because the benefits of a payroll
tax holiday will be more broadly shared, the stimulative impact of a
payroll tax holiday will be more broadly felt. And as for its impact on
Social Security, both the President and the AARP have assured us that
the diversion of funds will be both temporary and repaid in full. There
are reasons to be concerned about threats to Social Security's future,
but this should not be one of them.
Now, these positive elements must be weighed carefully against the
major concessions that were made to Republicans during the negotiations
that produced this bill. I am referring, of course, to the extension of
the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000, which will add over $100
billion to the deficit over the next 2 years while doing almost nothing
to stimulate the economy. This is not simply my personal opinion or the
view of the Democratic Party: it is a fact confirmed by the
Congressional Budget Office and any number of respected economists, and
well understood by the American people. As I have already stated, the
fact that the Republican leadership held this entire package hostage so
that millionaires could get an average tax break of $100,000 per year
tells us exactly where their true priorities lie: Tax cuts for the
wealthy are clearly the ``holy grail'' of their economic policy, to
which all other policy outcomes are subjugated.
I am equally disappointed by the inclusion of an estate tax proposal
that is little more than a gratuitous giveaway to some 6,600 wealthy
families. We hear a lot of dire warnings about the impact of the estate
tax on small farmers and business owners, but even to the extent that
they would be affected, the compromise estate tax proposal passed by
the House last December was more than sufficient to protect them. Now,
we are considering a proposal that costs $23 billion more than the 2009
proposal and will have no economic impact at all aside from letting a
few thousand millionaires and billionaires keep even more of their
inherited wealth--an average windfall of $3.5 million per family.
As the details of these provisions have become known, I have actively
engaged in discussions here and at home, doing everything within my
power to oppose the inclusion of giveaways to the wealthiest Americans
in the package. I have joined my colleagues in sending two separate
letters to the House leadership opposing the inclusion of upper-income
tax cuts and a third letter arguing against the gratuitous estate tax
provision, and last week
[[Page 22451]]
I voted for the House's middle class tax cut package which omitted
these giveaways. I have also signed several letters arguing for a more
sensible package of energy incentives in the legislation, including a
reduction of the ethanol credit that was added by the Senate at the
last minute. I was a strong supporter of the 2009 estate tax compromise
offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy, which unfortunately failed to
pass the Senate, and I will be voting for it again tonight.
While I am deeply disappointed that these efforts have not been more
successful, we are now called upon to evaluate this package as it is,
not as we would like it to be. The bottom line is that the positive
impact of this package for working- and middle-class Americans and our
economic recovery outweighs its negative impact on the deficit and its
unjust giveaways to the wealthy.
We must also consider the consequences of failing to enact this
legislation today. Deferring action on these expiring tax provisions
until next year would not only create chaos for American taxpayers; it
would also likely result in a package that is nowhere near as generous
or as equitable, given the extreme views of the incoming Republican
majority on many of its provisions. Republicans leaders openly state
that their chief concern in the 112th Congress is not economic
recovery, not putting Americans back to work, but ensuring President
Obama is a one-term President. While their stated goals may be grossly
misguided and narrow, mine will not be. Scuttling this package would
mean foregoing what will likely be our last opportunity to provide any
stimulus to the economy, given that the Republicans have made clear
their opposition to additional aid to states, infrastructure
investments, and other countercyclical programs. The need to maintain
demand and stimulate growth has not fully abated--this economy is not
yet out of the woods. The question is not whether the package before us
is the most effective one conceivable--it is not--but whether we will
do anything to keep the recovery going before the next Congress shuts
the door entirely.
Under these circumstances, I support this legislation despite its
flaws. I cannot in good conscience cast a ``no'' vote that, were it to
prevail, would expose working Americans to tax increases and end the
EITC and child credit provisions that have benefitted so many people. I
cannot in good conscience cast a vote that would rip away the safety
net for those not yet able to find work, and in the process hobble an
economic recovery. We risk all of these if this bill fails. Our good
conscience also causes us to question this bill's violations of tax
fairness and fiscal prudence; I have worked and will continue to work
to change these things. But tonight we must vote while we have the
chance to do so, and on the only vehicle available to us, to protect
the vast majority of our constituents and to bring this economy back to
health.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in somewhat reluctant support of
the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act. I am supporting this bill because of the tremendous good
it will do for middle class families in my district and throughout the
country.
This bill extends emergency unemployment benefits for 400,000
Californians whose benefits have expired. Not only do these benefits
help working families pay the bills and put food on their tables, they
also stimulate economic growth, creating $1.63 in economic demand for
every dollar in benefits.
This bill also extends dozens of tax incentives that benefit middle
class families like the college tuition deduction, child tax credit,
marriage penalty relief, and the enhanced earned income tax credit. It
helps small businesses expand and hire more workers by extending the
R&D tax credit, zero percent capital gains tax on long term small
business investments, and bonus depreciation for capital investments.
And it also invests in a clean, renewable energy future by extending
tax incentives for renewable fuels, energy-efficient appliances and
home construction, and the successful Treasury Department grant program
for renewable energy projects. These extensions will help local green
businesses in my district like Clipper Wind, REC Solar, and CREE
Lighting create quality green jobs that can't be shipped overseas. And
it will stimulate our economy by expanding our use of cleaner, safer
forms of energy.
The bottom line is this bill will create jobs and spur economic
growth, and these are provisions that I strongly support. However, this
bill also continues to tilt our tax code in favor of the wealthiest
three percent of our society. And I oppose those provisions in the
strongest of terms.
I support the permanent extension of current tax rates on income up
to $250,000 and, in fact, representing an area with such a high cost of
living, I would probably support extending that limit up to $500,000.
But, Mr. Chair, I do not see why we should extend the reduced tax rates
for incomes in excess of that.
This proposal to extend the reduced tax rates that only go to
millionaires and billionaires will cost taxpayers over $80 billion,
simply adding to our deficit. To add insult to injury, this tax cut
extension for the super-rich lasts for two years while emergency
unemployment benefits last for only 13 months. And, Mr. Chair,
according to virtually all economists these extensions will do
virtually nothing to stimulate economic growth.
Adding to the giveaways, Republicans insisted on ``fixing'' the
estate tax to ensure that only 0.14 percent of estates are subject to
the tax, adding another $68 billion to the deficit. I agree that the
estate tax needs to be fixed, but this is not the solution. At a time
when middle class families continue to struggle, continuing tax cuts
that only go to millionaires and billionaires is irresponsible,
wasteful and bad economics. These tax cuts for the super wealthy will
add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in just two years.
I am also very concerned that this bill includes a temporary two
percent reduction in payroll taxes for all employees and self-employed
individuals. While I strongly support additional tax relief to Middle
Class families--which this achieves--the payroll tax reduction puts the
Social Security Trust Fund at risk of losing its independent revenue
stream. I believe we should extend the Making Work Pay Tax Credit,
which gave targeted tax relief to those that needed it most without
endangering the financial security of Social Security.
Finally, the bill before us needlessly extends the excessive ethanol
tax subsidy of 46 cents per gallon. Thanks in part to this harmful
subsidy, the U.S. will divert nearly 40 percent of the domestic corn
crop from food and feed to fuel this year, which will only exacerbate
the growing problem of increasingly volatile and high commodity prices.
Lowering this subsidy by just 10 cents per gallon would help reduce
these harmful side effects, and save taxpayers roughly $1 billion next
year.
Mr. Chair, I am very disappointed that this important legislation to
prevent a tax increase on everyday Americans has been loaded down with
so many unnecessary and wasteful provisions. But I'm supporting this
bill because the needs of middle class families and small businesses--
the backbone of our economy--are too important to be left to die in the
hands of Republican leadership next Congress.
This bill is a compromise. It's not the compromise I would have
written. But it's the compromise that will get desperately needed help
to the families that need it most. Time has run out and we must act now
for the good of the American people.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4853, the
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act
of 2010.
It is fundamentally wrong to hold for ransom unemployment benefits to
the most vulnerable individuals among us for tax cuts to billionaires.
That's what happened here: 99.7 percent of us will not be affected by
the estate tax, yet a $23 billion bribe to just 6,600 families across
the entire country was needed to get those unemployment benefits in the
bill. And, we then add the entire cost of the bill, all $860 billion,
straight to the deficit.
Surely, there are worthwhile provisions in this bill. However, these
worthwhile provisions should not be held ransom for tax cuts to the
richest taxpayers--$60 billion in tax cuts for them--some $24 billion
more than the struggling middle class who've been the hardest hit by
the economic downturn. I fully support extending such low and middle-
class tax relief such as the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief,
the dependent care credit, the earned income tax credit, the student
loan interest deduction, and Alternative Minimum Tax relief, among
others. But don't tell me I have to vote for giving tax cuts to
billionaires for two years when we can't even give our seniors on
Social Security $250 for one.
Speaking of Social Security, this bill represents the single greatest
threat to the program since President Bush wanted to privatize it. This
bill requires a $111 billion infusion from general funds into the
Social Security Trust Fund to make up the difference for cutting two
percent from the employee payroll tax. Next year, if the economy hasn't
recovered sufficiently, Congress will not have the stomach to let the
tax holiday expire--no Member of Congress will want to ``raise''
payroll taxes by two percent. Any future extension of this tax holiday
necessarily means that Social Security will compete with other federal
programs, such as veterans, medical research, and defense, for its
funding. This dangerous precedent means that Social Security's
dedicated funding, payroll taxes, is under attack. This opens the door
to means testing and benefit cuts for beneficiaries. Make no mistake,
Social Security's
[[Page 22452]]
opponents will be enticed to move in for the kill by moving to
privatize the program.
I don't oppose extending the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent or
99 percent of taxpayers. In fact, before this compromise was struck, I
supported raising the threshold from $250,000 to something more
reasonable, such as $400,000, because where my constituents live there
is a much higher cost of living than in other parts of the country.
However, to hold extending those middle-class tax cuts hostage to pass
a bill that will cost more than TARP, more than the stimulus, and add
$860 billion to the national debt, is not acceptable.
Mr. Chair, it's hard to climb the ladder of prosperity if the middle
rungs are missing. This bill does nothing to restore those middle
rungs; instead, by giving the most to those who need it the least, it
perpetuates the failed thinking that somehow the rest of us will
benefit. I for one won't pay this ransom--my vote--for a few crumbs
when we should be getting what's fair for our constituents. I will vote
no on the underlying bill and I ask my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to revise my remarks regarding
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and
Job Creation Act of 2010.
I request the record reflect that Ms. Tammy Fisher is from West
Texas, not East Texas.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this tax compromise
with strong reservations. This bill contains some highly objectionable
provisions like unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent
of Americans and an estate tax modification that will only benefit the
richest 6,600 households across the country. These two items alone will
cost $129 billion, which could alternatively be used for deficit
reduction. However, I cannot in good conscience allow all of Rhode
Island's businesses and families to suffer onerous tax increases at a
time when jobs are scarce and people are pinching pennies just to put
food on the table.
Providing tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires is both
financially unjust and fiscally irresponsible given our current
budgetary challenges, but this compromise protects 98 percent of
Americans from significant tax increases set to take effect January 1,
2011, and has the potential to create the private sector jobs than can
sustain an economic recovery.
This legislation extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all income
levels for two years, and prevents middle-income Rhode Islanders from
being hit with higher tax rates under the Alternative Minimum Tax
(AMT). It also contains several provisions that would assist families
and stimulate our economic recovery, which has been frustratingly slow
in Rhode Island as state unemployment has lingered at 12.5 percent.
This compromise includes a 13 month extension of Unemployment
Insurance for the thousands of Rhode Islanders who are unable to find
work. I have spoken to countless constituents who want to work and are
actively looking for employment, but they cannot find jobs. Cutting off
their only means of support before the holidays would be an
unconscionable dereliction of our responsibilities as members of
Congress.
Businesses stand to benefit from a two-year extension of the Research
and Development Tax Credit, incentives for clean energy production, and
a new accelerated depreciation provision, which will allow a 100
percent write off of capital expenditures in 2011 and 50 percent in
2012. These incentives will ease the tax burden on Rhode Island
companies seeking to expand their operations and grow their business,
providing an extra boost to our local economy.
For Rhode Island families, this proposal includes a two-year increase
of the full Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. Together,
these provisions will provide ongoing tax cuts to 12 million lower
income families. In addition, it fully extends the American Opportunity
Tax Credit for two years to ensure more people can afford higher
education.
Finally, this bill establishes a year-long tax holiday, providing
$112 billion in relief by cutting the Social Security payroll tax by
two percent. Hard working Rhode Islanders could use a little extra
income in their pockets--money that will ultimately be spent and pumped
back into the economy to create more jobs. This temporary measure will
have no negative impact on Social Security. That said, I will not allow
this measure to be used as a springboard toward a permanent reduction
of Social Security tax revenues that threatens the program's solvency
and breaks the promise we have made to our seniors, veterans and
disabled Americans.
Mr. Chair, this compromise is neither a perfect nor permanent
solution to our economic challenges, but the cost of inaction is
something I'm not willing to pass along to my constituents. If a better
deal were possible, I would take it. In fact, I was proud to vote for
middle class tax relief just two weeks ago, but my Republican
colleagues rejected this common sense bill and it failed to pass the
Senate. So now we are faced with a choice--accept this compromise or
continue playing politics. The time for politics is over. We have less
than two weeks before everybody's tax burden increases. I urge my
colleagues to act before our time is up.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, although I support extending
lower taxes for the working and middle class and reauthorizing
unemployment benefits, I voted against the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853)
because it pays too high a price in terms of tax cuts for the rich. The
disconnect between the needs of the country and the wealth of a few was
just too much for me to bear.
As the economy recovers, I think it is important to make sure that
the working people of America keep as much of their hard-earned dollars
as possible. For that reason, I am very happy that this bill extended
tax cuts targeted for the middle and working class. The bill helps
families make ends meet and provides a tremendous boost to our economy.
Similarly, reauthorizing unemployment benefits provides stability and
certainty for those hardest hit by the recession. Moreover, the
unemployed will spend their benefits, which spread throughout their
communities and help the entire economy. Low-income tax credits,
refundable child tax credits, and college tuition credits in this bill
all have the same effect. They invest in our people and stimulate the
economy.
Unfortunately, the tax policies forced on us by Republicans will have
the opposite effect. We have been there before. I vividly remember when
the Bush administration slammed huge tax cuts through Congress. They
promised the economy would grow and deficits would never appear. Of
course, the opposite occurred. The working and middle class earned
less, the wealthy took home more and the deficit exploded, erasing the
surplus created under President Clinton.
I categorically oppose a return to Republican tax policies that
benefit only the rich at the expense of the Nation. The elections told
us that Americans are tired of giveaways to Wall Street and CEOs. But
that is exactly what these tax cuts represent. Under the bill passed
last night, 40,000 of the wealthiest families in America will save $25
billion on estate taxes compared to current law. Couples earning over
$250,000 keep an extra $116 billion over two years. Each billion equals
one thousand millions. Just think of all the deficit reduction and
extended unemployment benefits that could pay for.
When we are leaving millions of unemployed people empty handed a week
before Christmas, it is outrageous to push our country further into
debt just to give unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. I
simply could not support such a stark contrast in our priorities.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill
H.R. 4853--Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010.
I believe it is important that we extend the so-called Bush tax cuts
for everyone while our economy is still struggling to recover, and as
long as we can pay for it. This bill as presented to the U.S. House
does not meet that test. I am especially disappointed in the provision
on the estate tax. I cannot in good conscience cast one of my last
significant votes in Congress in favor of a bill that would add tens of
millions of dollars to the Federal deficit to benefit the wealthiest
few families in the country.
The payroll tax holiday provision included in this package is also
troublesome since for the first time in 75 years, the sacrosanct,
dedicated revenue stream to provide Social Security benefits is
diverted for other purposes. While we have fully protected the Social
Security Trust Fund in the legislation and there will be no change in
how much money is in the Trust Fund, I am concerned that proponents of
private accounts will argue to continue this diversion of the payroll
tax beyond one year--perhaps even putting the money into private
accounts. At a time when we know that the long term solvency of Social
Security will need either greater contributions or significant
reductions in benefit, providing a payroll tax holiday is clearly a
move in the wrong direction.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4853, the
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job
[[Page 22453]]
Creation Act of 2010 for one simple reason. It includes an extension of
federally-subsidized unemployment compensation benefits for thirteen
additional months. The importance of extending unemployment benefits
for my constituents back home cannot be overstated: these benefits are
a critical lifeline for many in my district, as they are for millions
of other Americans and their families. In October, the latest month for
which data is available, there were 588,000 individuals in the State of
Ohio who relied on this benefit to keep their heads and their families'
heads above water. The Department of Labor reports that nearly 8.3
million Americans were receiving unemployment compensation as of early
November.
Extending federal support for unemployment benefits is the least that
we can do on behalf of the estimated 1.2 million people nationwide
whose unemployment insurance either recently expired or will expire as
they reach the last weeks of their available benefits. Cutting off
unemployment benefits only adds to the shame and humiliation that
people feel upon losing gainful employment through no fault of their
own. For the residents of Ohio, this cutoff has been especially painful
as the unemployment rate in Ohio is currently 9.9 percent. Through
2009, of those who were unemployed in my state, nearly a third had been
unemployed for 26 weeks or longer. This is the highest rate of long-
term unemployment seen in over 15 years. Ohio's economy was already
struggling long before the current recession hit. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio lost approximately 430,000
manufacturing jobs from 1990 through July of 2010.
These staggering job losses have a spillover effect, touching every
county and city in Ohio, as foreclosure rates have risen to a
devastating level. Each year since 1995, the rate of new foreclosure
filings in Ohio has grown, and from 1995 to 2009, the rate quadrupled.
In 2009, there were a record 89,053 foreclosure filings--that is one
foreclosure filing for every 56 housing units in the State of Ohio. In
the City of Cleveland alone, there have been more than 38,000 new
foreclosure filings since 2005. Because this crisis spread steadily to
more middle-class and high-income suburban areas, non-urban areas now
have the highest foreclosure rates in the state.
The ripple effects continue. Ohioans are forced to live with others
due to foreclosure. They face communities marked with vacant and
abandoned properties. The State of Ohio tells us that there are around
58,000 Ohioans who have exhausted the assistance they were getting from
the state or federal government. But there are no official counts of
the number of underemployed individuals, who are thankful for what they
do have but cannot find opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. It
is for these people that I cast a ``yea'' vote on this bill.
The bill contains much more than the unemployment benefits. It
provides for a two-year extension of the tax cut provisions passed in
2001 and 2003 for individuals and couples at all income levels and
extends the 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35
percent marginal tax brackets for two years. It temporarily repeals,
for two years, the personal exemption phaseout, ``PEP'', as well as the
itemized deduction limitation that taxpayers may claim on their income
tax filings. It also continues enhanced child tax credits, and the
maximum 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in
the 25 percent tax bracket and above. It reduces the tax known as the
``marriage penalty'' and it includes a two-year ``patch'' intended to
prevent more than 25 million Americans from being subject to the
alternative minimum tax, otherwise scheduled to take effect in the next
calendar year. It also extends expensing rules for small businesses.
However, I am gravely concerned that the inclusion of a provision to
lower the employee portion of the payroll tax by two percentage points
for one year threatens to reduce Social Security to a bargaining chip.
This provision significantly weakens Social Security's revenue stream
and makes it more vulnerable to the calls for cuts and privatization
the program has faced for years. Advocates of this provision point out
that Americans may use the money that will not be deducted from their
paychecks to pay down the crushing level of personal debt that many are
struggling with. But the cost to the Social Security trust fund of $112
billion is dangerous because it cuts one-third of Social Security's
funding this year alone. Worse, the act of temporarily lowering this
contribution--normally an accepted deduction from every working
American's paycheck--may become a political issue when time comes for
this provision to sunset and the payroll tax to be reinstated. Social
Security is a vital lifeline for our nation's seniors, and we tread
into perilous waters when we tinker with its funding mechanism.
Mr. Chair, this bill contains many provisions about which I have
strong reservations, including the payroll tax ``holiday,'' the gutting
of the estate tax, subsidies for ethanol and liquid coal, and the
extension of low tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. But this bill
contains a crucial provision--an extension of unemployment benefits
which are critical for millions of Americans. I cannot in good
conscience vote against it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I voted against a fiscally irresponsible
$858 billion tax cut package. Every penny of this budget-busting bill
will be borrowed--much of it from China--and the burden placed on the
backs of our children and grandchildren.
To keep the economic recovery on track and meet the needs of
struggling American families, I do support extending middle class tax
cuts and unemployment insurance. But Republicans in Congress held these
priorities hostage until millionaires and billionaires were guaranteed
tax cuts that they don't need. Tax breaks for the wealthy are a luxury
Americans can't afford. This is simply wrong. With unemployment nearly
at 10 percent, Members of Congress should be focused on getting all of
America back to work, not padding the trust funds for a precious few.
The tax package the House voted on last night was even worse than the
one negotiated by the President and Republicans in Congress. The Senate
got into the holiday spirit and sent the House a Christmas tree bill
loaded down with special interest ``sweeteners.'' Why will NASCAR
owners open their stockings this year to find a $40 million tax break
from the American people? Why are Hollywood producers getting a $162
million in special breaks paid for by the American people? Why do rum
makers in Puerto Rico get $235 million? Middle class Americans
shouldn't be forced to use the nation's credit card so the special
interests receive everything on their wish lists.
America needs honest and responsible policymaking. The federal budget
is in crisis and tough decisions are necessary. This tax cut package
makes no tough decisions. Instead, kicks the hard choices down the road
and makes solving America's fiscal crisis much harder.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chair, Title VII of this legislation provides for the
extension of a number of tax provisions that expired at the end of
2009, or were set to expire at the end of 2010. I understand an effort
was made to limit this title to what are known as the ``traditional''
tax extenders, with the general test being whether or not an expiring
provision had been extended in the past. As a result of this decision,
several provisions that expired for the first time at the end of 2009,
and that had been included in previous drafts of tax extenders
legislation, are not extended in this bill. One of these, the Section
45 production tax credit for electricity produced at open-loop biomass
facilities placed in service before October 22, 2004, is important to a
number of energy producers in the district I represent. Under current
law, these facilities were permitted to claim the production tax credit
for 5 years, ending in 2009. Previous tax extension proposals included
a 2-year extension of this credit period. As a matter of simple
fairness, I believe it is only right that these biomass producers
should be able to claim the production tax credit for the same 10-year
period afforded to the other renewable electricity producers covered
under Section 45.
It is my understanding that no judgment was made on the policy merits
of individual expiring tax provisions, and therefore no negative
inference should be drawn against provisions that are not included in
this legislation simply because they had not been extended in the past.
I look forward to working with other members of the Ways and Means
Committee in the 112th Congress to review these provisions and
determine which ones are worthy of extension.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, it is with regret that I rise in opposition to
this legislation. Less than two weeks ago, I joined a majority of this
House in passing middle class tax relief that balanced the needs of
working families with our nation's need to get its fiscal house in
order. Unfortunately the Senate failed to pass this bill.
The legislation we are considering today is deeply flawed. We should
try to put money in the pockets of working families, and I do not fault
President Obama and many of my colleagues who want to get something
done on behalf of the millions of Americans who need help. But, this is
the wrong way to do it.
Yet, at a time when income inequality in the United States has risen
to its highest level in decades, the bill under consideration would
shift the burden of funding the federal government further onto middle-
class and working-class families. The bill would give away tax
[[Page 22454]]
breaks to the wealthiest two percent of households at a cost of more
than $120 billion charged to the national debt.
I am most concerned, however, that the bill undermines the very idea
of Social Security. Social Security has been a pillar of our society
for generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and
others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political
masterstroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and
has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of
ownership for the program.
In good economic times and in bad, regardless of which political
party is in power, this sense of ownership--that Americans will get out
that which they put into the Social Security--has allowed it to survive
despite the efforts of determined enemies.
A provision in the bill would reduce an employee's contribution to
Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of salary. This could
have a beneficial stimulative economic effect. The $112 billion cost to
the Social Security trust fund of this payroll tax holiday is supposed
to be replaced with money from the general treasury fund. But that is
just the problem. In Social Security's history such a commingling of
payroll taxes and money from the Treasury at this scale is
unprecedented.
This is not just about the financial health of Social Security,
rather it is about Social Security's rationale that has worked well for
generations. This bill places Social Security on the table with tax
breaks for business expenses, tax breaks for the top two percent of
Americans, the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax--essentially
making it just another bargaining chip. If we allow Social Security to
become a bargaining chip for dealing politicians, then it will not be
long for this world. As much as we need economic stimulus now, we will
need Social security for decades to come. Rather than taking money from
Social Security, I would support a tax credit--similar to President
Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit--that would give working families a
sizeable tax break with money from general revenues.
In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR insisted that
Social Security should be self-sustaining and that funds for the
payment of insurance benefits should not come from the process of
general taxation. FDR's message is as correct today as it was 75 years
ago.
To be sure, the legislation before us today contains many good
provisions that I would support on their own. The bill contains a one
year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. According to the
Labor Department, there are five job-seekers for every job opening in
the U.S. Extending unemployment is the right thing to do morally and
for the economy. The legislation would extend middle class tax relief
for two years along with many family-friendly tax breaks such as the
Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Alternative Minimum Tax
relief, and marriage penalty relief. The bill also would extend
expanded transportation benefits for commuters and tax credits like the
research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create
jobs.
Congress needs to provide unemployment insurance for Americans
searching for work, extend tax relief working families, and find
solutions to our budget crisis. Yet these must not come at the expense
of Social Security. It is too important to lose.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, it is with a great deal of regret that
I will vote against H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act.
Reaching this decision has not been easy because President Obama
fought for and succeeded in getting several provisions into this bill
which I wholeheartedly support.
Among those provisions is the extension of unemployment insurance for
millions of American families who through no fault of their own have
lost their jobs, the child tax credit, the middle class tax cuts, the
earned income tax credit and tax breaks for small business. These were
major victories for President Obama.
My concern is that the provisions in the bill demanded by Republicans
come at too high a price and impact the future well being of our
country and our children. Based on the calls I have received, the
majority of my constituents agree.
According to economists the demands by Republicans to give the 6,600
wealthiest Americans a tax break of $23 billion will do nothing to
stimulate our economy or create one job.
What this one provision alone will do, however, is increase our out
of control deficit by another 8 percent. This is irresponsible and will
make it even more difficult for our country to stop mortgaging our
future to China; a mortgage which will ultimately fall on the backs of
our children and our grandchildren in the years to come.
I also have a deep concern about this bill's impact on Social
Security. My fear has to do with the 2 percent reduction in employee
contributions to Social Security which has the potential to destroy the
guaranteed safety net which keeps millions of older and disabled
Americans out of poverty.
While this provision is intended to be temporary, I have learned in
my 18 years in Washington that tax cuts are seldom temporary. It is
always easier to cut taxes than it is to restore them as this very bill
demonstrates.
The Social Security payroll tax provides an independent revenue
stream which keeps Social Security from contributing to our nation's
budget deficit and outside of the budget process.
If the payroll tax is not restored, which I believe is likely with a
Republican majority in the House, Social Security would become
dependent on the general fund for revenue.
This would threaten the safety net for seniors and the disabled by
making it vulnerable to budget cuts and competition with other
essential programs like veterans benefits and safety net programs for
children.
By doing this, we could be sowing the seeds for the privatization of
Social Security.
Therefore, while this bill does provide short term relief, the
potential long term suffering and negative impact of this bill are too
high a price to pay.
I cannot in good conscience support this bill with the potential long
term negative impact on Social Security and the unnecessary increased
burden the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will put on the
shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
I am saddened that my Republican colleagues demanded these
irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in exchange for the
very critical provisions of this bill supported by the President. While
I am heartened that we are acting to extend unemployment insurance and
protect those still struggling to find work, there is too much in this
bill that only adds to our already uncontrollable deficit and does
nothing to help our economy or create jobs.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment shall be considered for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The Clerk will designate the Senate amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010''.
(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 for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; etc.
TITLE I--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF
Sec. 101. Temporary extension of 2001 tax relief.
Sec. 102. Temporary extension of 2003 tax relief.
Sec. 103. Temporary extension of 2009 tax relief.
TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL AMT RELIEF
Sec. 201. Temporary extension of increased alternative minimum tax
exemption amount.
Sec. 202. Temporary extension of alternative minimum tax relief for
nonrefundable personal credits.
TITLE III--TEMPORARY ESTATE TAX RELIEF
Sec. 301. Reinstatement of estate tax; repeal of carryover basis.
Sec. 302. Modifications to estate, gift, and generation-skipping
transfer taxes.
Sec. 303. Applicable exclusion amount increased by unused exclusion
amount of deceased spouse.
Sec. 304. Application of EGTRRA sunset to this title.
TITLE IV--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INVESTMENT INCENTIVES
Sec. 401. Extension of bonus depreciation; temporary 100 percent
expensing for certain business assets.
Sec. 402. Temporary extension of increased small business expensing.
TITLE V--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND RELATED
MATTERS
Sec. 501. Temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions.
Sec. 502. Temporary modification of indicators under the extended
benefit program.
[[Page 22455]]
Sec. 503. Technical amendment relating to collection of unemployment
compensation debts.
Sec. 504. Technical correction relating to repeal of continued dumping
and subsidy offset.
Sec. 505. Additional extended unemployment benefits under the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act.
TITLE VI--TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUT
Sec. 601. Temporary employee payroll tax cut.
TITLE VII--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Energy
Sec. 701. Incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
Sec. 702. Credit for refined coal facilities.
Sec. 703. New energy efficient home credit.
Sec. 704. Excise tax credits and outlay payments for alternative fuel
and alternative fuel mixtures.
Sec. 705. Special rule for sales or dispositions to implement FERC or
State electric restructuring policy for qualified
electric utilities.
Sec. 706. Suspension of limitation on percentage depletion for oil and
gas from marginal wells.
Sec. 707. Extension of grants for specified energy property in lieu of
tax credits.
Sec. 708. Extension of provisions related to alcohol used as fuel.
Sec. 709. Energy efficient appliance credit.
Sec. 710. Credit for nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 711. Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property.
Subtitle B--Individual Tax Relief
Sec. 721. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers.
Sec. 722. Deduction of State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 723. Contributions of capital gain real property made for
conservation purposes.
Sec. 724. Above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related
expenses.
Sec. 725. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for
charitable purposes.
Sec. 726. Look-thru of certain regulated investment company stock in
determining gross estate of nonresidents.
Sec. 727. Parity for exclusion from income for employer-provided mass
transit and parking benefits.
Sec. 728. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal programs
and federally assisted programs.
Subtitle C--Business Tax Relief
Sec. 731. Research credit.
Sec. 732. Indian employment tax credit.
Sec. 733. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 734. Railroad track maintenance credit.
Sec. 735. Mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 736. Employer wage credit for employees who are active duty
members of the uniformed services.
Sec. 737. 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold
improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and
improvements, and qualified retail improvements.
Sec. 738. 7-year recovery period for motorsports entertainment
complexes.
Sec. 739. Accelerated depreciation for business property on an Indian
reservation.
Sec. 740. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
Sec. 741. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book
inventories to public schools.
Sec. 742. Enhanced charitable deduction for corporate contributions of
computer inventory for educational purposes.
Sec. 743. Election to expense mine safety equipment.
Sec. 744. Special expensing rules for certain film and television
productions.
Sec. 745. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 746. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to
domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 747. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to
controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 748. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment
companies.
Sec. 749. RIC qualified investment entity treatment under FIRPTA.
Sec. 750. Exceptions for active financing income.
Sec. 751. Look-thru treatment of payments between related controlled
foreign corporations under foreign personal holding
company rules.
Sec. 752. Basis adjustment to stock of S corps making charitable
contributions of property.
Sec. 753. Empowerment zone tax incentives.
Sec. 754. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 755. Temporary increase in limit on cover over of rum excise taxes
to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 756. American Samoa economic development credit.
Sec. 757. Work opportunity credit.
Sec. 758. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 759. Mortgage insurance premiums.
Sec. 760. Temporary exclusion of 100 percent of gain on certain small
business stock.
Subtitle D--Temporary Disaster Relief Provisions
subpart a--new york liberty zone
Sec. 761. Tax-exempt bond financing.
subpart b--go zone
Sec. 762. Increase in rehabilitation credit.
Sec. 763. Low-income housing credit rules for buildings in GO zones.
Sec. 764. Tax-exempt bond financing.
Sec. 765. Bonus depreciation deduction applicable to the GO Zone.
TITLE VIII--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Determination of budgetary effects.
Sec. 802. Emergency designations.
TITLE I--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF
SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX RELIEF.
(a) Temporary Extension.--
(1) In general.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by striking
``December 31, 2010'' both places it appears and inserting
``December 31, 2012''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
(b) Separate Sunset for Expansion of Adoption Benefits
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 10909 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended to read
as follows:
``(c) Sunset Provision.--Each provision of law amended by
this section is amended to read as such provision would read
if this section had never been enacted. The amendments made
by the preceding sentence shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2011.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 10909
of such Act is amended by striking ``The amendments'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (c), the
amendments''.
SEC. 102. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is amended by striking
``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
SEC. 103. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2009 TAX RELIEF.
(a) American Opportunity Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 25A(i) is amended by striking ``or
2010'' and inserting ``, 2010, 2011, or 2012''.
(2) Treatment of possessions.--Section 1004(c)(1) of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is amended
by striking ``and 2010'' each place it appears and inserting
``, 2010, 2011, and 2012''.
(b) Child Tax Credit.--Section 24(d)(4) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2009 and 2010'' in the heading and
inserting ``2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012'', and
(2) by striking ``or 2010'' and inserting ``, 2010, 2011,
or 2012''.
(c) Earned Income Tax Credit.--Section 32(b)(3) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``2009 and 2010'' in the heading and
inserting ``2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012'', and
(2) by striking ``or 2010'' and inserting ``, 2010, 2011,
or 2012''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2010.
TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL AMT RELIEF
SEC. 201. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$70,950'' and all that follows through
``2009'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``$72,450 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2010 and $74,450 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2011'', and
(2) by striking ``$46,700'' and all that follows through
``2009'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``$47,450 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2010 and $48,450 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
(c) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to title
VII of such Act (relating to alternative minimum tax).
SEC. 202. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, 2010, or
2011'', and
(2) by striking ``2009'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
[[Page 22456]]
TITLE III--TEMPORARY ESTATE TAX RELIEF
SEC. 301. REINSTATEMENT OF ESTATE TAX; REPEAL OF CARRYOVER
BASIS.
(a) In General.--Each provision of law amended by subtitle
A or E of title V of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended to read as such
provision would read if such subtitle had never been enacted.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--On and after January 1, 2011,
paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended to read as such paragraph would read if
section 521(b)(2) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never been enacted.
(c) Special Election With Respect to Estates of Decedents
Dying in 2010.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case
of an estate of a decedent dying after December 31, 2009, and
before January 1, 2011, the executor (within the meaning of
section 2203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) may elect
to apply such Code as though the amendments made by
subsection (a) do not apply with respect to chapter 11 of
such Code and with respect to property acquired or passing
from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b) of
such Code). Such election shall be made at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury or the
Secretary's delegate shall provide. Such an election once
made shall be revocable only with the consent of the
Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. For
purposes of section 2652(a)(1) of such Code, the
determination of whether any property is subject to the tax
imposed by such chapter 11 shall be made without regard to
any election made under this subsection.
(d) Extension of Time for Performing Certain Acts.--
(1) Estate tax.--In the case of the estate of a decedent
dying after December 31, 2009, and before the date of the
enactment of this Act, the due date for--
(A) filing any return under section 6018 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be
made on such a return) as such section is in effect after the
date of the enactment of this Act without regard to any
election under subsection (c),
(B) making any payment of tax under chapter 11 of such
Code, and
(C) making any disclaimer described in section 2518(b) of
such Code of an interest in property passing by reason of the
death of such decedent,
shall not be earlier than the date which is 9 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Generation-skipping tax.--In the case of any
generation-skipping transfer made after December 31, 2009,
and before the date of the enactment of this Act, the due
date for filing any return under section 2662 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be
made on such a return) shall not be earlier than the date
which is 9 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(e) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the amendments made by this section shall apply to
estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after
December 31, 2009.
SEC. 302. MODIFICATIONS TO ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-
SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES.
(a) Modifications to Estate Tax.--
(1) $5,000,000 applicable exclusion amount.--Subsection (c)
of section 2010 is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Applicable Credit Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
applicable credit amount is the amount of the tentative tax
which would be determined under section 2001(c) if the amount
with respect to which such tentative tax is to be computed
were equal to the applicable exclusion amount.
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable exclusion amount is $5,000,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2011, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(2) Maximum estate tax rate equal to 35 percent.--
Subsection (c) of section 2001 is amended--
(A) by striking ``Over $500,000'' and all that follows in
the table contained in paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``Over $500,000........................... $155,800, plus 35 percent of
the excess of such amount
over $500,000.'',
(B) by striking ``(1) In general.--'', and
(C) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Modifications to Gift Tax.--
(1) Restoration of unified credit against gift tax.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a), after
the application of section 301(b), is amended by striking
``(determined as if the applicable exclusion amount were
$1,000,000)''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by this paragraph
shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 2010.
(2) Modification of gift tax rate.--On and after January 1,
2011, subsection (a) of section 2502 is amended to read as
such subsection would read if section 511(d) of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never
been enacted.
(c) Modification of Generation-skipping Transfer Tax.--In
the case of any generation-skipping transfer made after
December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2011, the applicable
rate determined under section 2641(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 shall be zero.
(d) Modifications of Estate and Gift Taxes to Reflect
Differences in Credit Resulting From Different Tax Rates.--
(1) Estate tax.--
(A) In general.--Section 2001(b)(2) is amended by striking
``if the provisions of subsection (c) (as in effect at the
decedent's death)'' and inserting ``if the modifications
described in subsection (g)''.
(B) Modifications.--Section 2001 is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Modifications to Gift Tax Payable to Reflect
Different Tax Rates.--For purposes of applying subsection
(b)(2) with respect to 1 or more gifts, the rates of tax
under subsection (c) in effect at the decedent's death shall,
in lieu of the rates of tax in effect at the time of such
gifts, be used both to compute--
``(1) the tax imposed by chapter 12 with respect to such
gifts, and
``(2) the credit allowed against such tax under section
2505, including in computing--
``(A) the applicable credit amount under section
2505(a)(1), and
``(B) the sum of the amounts allowed as a credit for all
preceding periods under section 2505(a)(2).''.
(2) Gift tax.--Section 2505(a) is amended by adding at the
end the following new flush sentence:
``For purposes of applying paragraph (2) for any calendar
year, the rates of tax in effect under section 2502(a)(2) for
such calendar year shall, in lieu of the rates of tax in
effect for preceding calendar periods, be used in determining
the amounts allowable as a credit under this section for all
preceding calendar periods.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2511 is amended by
striking subsection (c).
(f) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to estates of decedents dying, generation-skipping transfers,
and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 303. APPLICABLE EXCLUSION AMOUNT INCREASED BY UNUSED
EXCLUSION AMOUNT OF DECEASED SPOUSE.
(a) In General.--Section 2010(c), as amended by section
302(a), is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting
the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount, and
``(B) in the case of a surviving spouse, the deceased
spousal unused exclusion amount.
``(3) Basic exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
basic exclusion amount is $5,000,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2011, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.
``(4) Deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--For
purposes of this subsection, with respect to a surviving
spouse of a deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010,
the term `deceased spousal unused exclusion amount' means the
lesser of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount, or
``(B) the excess of--
``(i) the basic exclusion amount of the last such deceased
spouse of such surviving spouse, over
``(ii) the amount with respect to which the tentative tax
is determined under section 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such
deceased spouse.
``(5) Special rules.--
``(A) Election required.--A deceased spousal unused
exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving
spouse under paragraph (2) unless the executor of the estate
of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which
such amount is computed and makes an election on such return
that such amount may be so taken into account. Such election,
once made, shall be irrevocable. No election may be made
under this subparagraph if such return is filed after the
time prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing such
return.
``(B) Examination of prior returns after expiration of
period of limitations with respect to deceased spousal unused
exclusion amount.--Notwithstanding any period of limitation
in section 6501, after the time has expired under section
6501 within which a tax may be assessed under chapter 11 or
12 with respect to a deceased spousal unused exclusion
amount, the Secretary may examine a return of the deceased
spouse to make determinations with respect to such amount for
purposes of carrying out this subsection.
``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this subsection.''.
[[Page 22457]]
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a), as amended by section
302(b)(1), is amended to read as follows:
``(1) the applicable credit amount in effect under section
2010(c) which would apply if the donor died as of the end of
the calendar year, reduced by''.
(2) Section 2631(c) is amended by striking ``the applicable
exclusion amount'' and inserting ``the basic exclusion
amount''.
(3) Section 6018(a)(1) is amended by striking ``applicable
exclusion amount'' and inserting ``basic exclusion amount''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to estates of
decedents dying and gifts made after December 31, 2010.
(2) Conforming amendment relating to generation-skipping
transfers.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to generation-skipping transfers after December 31,
2010.
SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET TO THIS TITLE.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall apply to the amendments made
by this title.
TITLE IV--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INVESTMENT INCENTIVES
SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF BONUS DEPRECIATION; TEMPORARY 100
PERCENT EXPENSING FOR CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(k) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2012'' in subparagraph (A)(iv)
and inserting ``January 1, 2014'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2013''.
(b) Temporary 100 Percent Expensing.--Subsection (k) of
section 168 is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Special rule for property acquired during certain
pre-2012 periods.--In the case of qualified property acquired
by the taxpayer (under rules similar to the rules of clauses
(ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2)(A)) after September 8, 2010,
and before January 1, 2012, and which is placed in service by
the taxpayer before January 1, 2012 (January 1, 2013, in the
case of property described in subparagraph (2)(B) or (2)(C)),
paragraph (1)(A) shall be applied by substituting `100
percent' for `50 percent'.''.
(c) Extension of Election To Accelerate the AMT Credit in
Lieu of Bonus Depreciation.--
(1) Extension.--Clause (iii) of section 168(k)(4)(D) is
amended by striking ``or production'' and all that follows
and inserting ``or production--
``(I) after March 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2010, and
``(II) after December 31, 2010, and before January 1, 2013,
shall be taken into account under subparagraph (B)(ii)
thereof,''.
(2) Rules for round 2 extension property.--Paragraph (4) of
section 168(k) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(I) Special rules for round 2 extension property.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of round 2 extension
property, this paragraph shall be applied without regard to--
``(I) the limitation described in subparagraph (B)(i)
thereof, and
``(II) the business credit increase amount under
subparagraph (E)(iii) thereof.
``(ii) Taxpayers previously electing acceleration.--In the
case of a taxpayer who made the election under subparagraph
(A) for its first taxable year ending after March 31, 2008,
or a taxpayer who made the election under subparagraph
(H)(ii) for its first taxable year ending after December 31,
2008--
``(I) the taxpayer may elect not to have this paragraph
apply to round 2 extension property, but
``(II) if the taxpayer does not make the election under
subclause (I), in applying this paragraph to the taxpayer the
bonus depreciation amount, maximum amount, and maximum
increase amount shall be computed and applied to eligible
qualified property which is round 2 extension property.
The amounts described in subclause (II) shall be computed
separately from any amounts computed with respect to eligible
qualified property which is not round 2 extension property.
``(iii) Taxpayers not previously electing acceleration.--In
the case of a taxpayer who neither made the election under
subparagraph (A) for its first taxable year ending after
March 31, 2008, nor made the election under subparagraph
(H)(ii) for its first taxable year ending after December 31,
2008--
``(I) the taxpayer may elect to have this paragraph apply
to its first taxable year ending after December 31, 2010, and
each subsequent taxable year, and
``(II) if the taxpayer makes the election under subclause
(I), this paragraph shall only apply to eligible qualified
property which is round 2 extension property.
``(iv) Round 2 extension property.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `round 2 extension property' means
property which is eligible qualified property solely by
reason of the extension of the application of the special
allowance under paragraph (1) pursuant to the amendments made
by section 401(a) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (and the
application of such extension to this paragraph pursuant to
the amendment made by section 401(c)(1) of such Act).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for subsection (k) of section 168 is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting
``January 1, 2013''.
(2) The heading for clause (ii) of section 168(k)(2)(B) is
amended by striking ``pre-january 1, 2011'' and inserting
``pre-january 1, 2013''.
(3) Subparagraph (D) of section 168(k)(4) is amended--
(A) by striking clauses (iv) and (v),
(B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), and
(C) by striking the comma at the end of clause (iii) and
inserting a period.
(4) Paragraph (5) of section 168(l) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
(B) by striking subparagraph (B), and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(5) Subparagraph (C) of section 168(n)(2) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1,
2013''.
(6) Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(b)(2) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1,
2013''.
(7) Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1,
2013''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to property
placed in service after December 31, 2010, in taxable years
ending after such date.
(2) Temporary 100 percent expensing.--The amendment made by
subsection (b) shall apply to property placed in service
after September 8, 2010, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. 402. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED SMALL BUSINESS
EXPENSING.
(a) Dollar Limitation.--Section 179(b)(1) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and by
striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following new
subparagraphs:
``(C) $125,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in
2012, and
``(D) $25,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after
2012.''.
(b) Reduction in Limitation.--Section 179(b)(2) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and by
striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following new
subparagraphs:
``(C) $500,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in
2012, and
``(D) $200,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after
2012.''.
(c) Inflation Adjustment.--Subsection (b) of section 179 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Inflation adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in calendar year 2012, the $125,000 and $500,000
amounts in paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) shall each be
increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2006' for
`calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(B) Rounding.--
``(i) Dollar limitation.--If the amount in paragraph (1) as
increased under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $1,000,
such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of
$1,000.
``(ii) Phaseout amount.--If the amount in paragraph (2) as
increased under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of
$10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple
of $10,000.''.
(d) Computer Software.--Section 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended
by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 179(c)(2) is amended by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2011.
TITLE V--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND RELATED
MATTERS
SEC. 501. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``November 30, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 3, 2012'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``november 30, 2010'' and inserting ``january 3, 2012''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``April 30, 2011''
and inserting ``June 9, 2012''.
(2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``December 1, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 4, 2012''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``May 1, 2011'' and
inserting ``June 11, 2012''.
(3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``April 30, 2011'' and inserting ``June
10, 2012''.
[[Page 22458]]
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) the amendments made by section 501(a)(1) of the Tax
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010; and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-205).
SEC. 502. TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF INDICATORS UNDER THE
EXTENDED BENEFIT PROGRAM.
(a) Indicator.--Section 203(d) of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C.
3304 note) is amended, in the flush matter following
paragraph (2), by inserting after the first sentence the
following sentence: ``Effective with respect to compensation
for weeks of unemployment beginning after the date of
enactment of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (or, if later,
the date established pursuant to State law), and ending on or
before December 31, 2011, the State may by law provide that
the determination of whether there has been a state `on' or
`off' indicator beginning or ending any extended benefit
period shall be made under this subsection as if the word
`two' were `three' in subparagraph (1)(A).''.
(b) Alternative Trigger.--Section 203(f) of the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26
U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Effective with respect to compensation for weeks of
unemployment beginning after the date of enactment of the Tax
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010 (or, if later, the date established
pursuant to State law), and ending on or before December 31,
2011, the State may by law provide that the determination of
whether there has been a state `on' or `off' indicator
beginning or ending any extended benefit period shall be made
under this subsection as if the word `either' were `any', the
word ``both'' were `all', and the figure `2' were `3' in
clause (1)(A)(ii).''.
SEC. 503. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO COLLECTION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEBTS.
(a) In General.--Section 6402(f)(3)(C), as amended by
section 801 of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, is amended
by striking ``is not a covered unemployment compensation
debt'' and inserting ``is a covered unemployment compensation
debt''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in section 801 of the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010.
SEC. 504. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO REPEAL OF
CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET.
(a) In General.--Section 822(2)(A) of the Claims Resolution
Act of 2010 is amended by striking ``or'' and inserting
``and''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
SEC. 505. ADDITIONAL EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE
RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.
(a) Extension.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by section 2006 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5) and as amended by section 9 of the Worker,
Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-92), is amended--
(1) by striking ``June 30, 2010'' and inserting ``June 30,
2011''; and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Clarification on Authority To Use Funds.--Funds
appropriated under either the first or second sentence of
clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the
cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided
under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments
made by subsection (a) as well as to cover the cost of such
benefits provided under such section 2(c)(2)(D), as in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE VI--TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUT
SEC. 601. TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) with respect to any taxable year which begins in the
payroll tax holiday period, the rate of tax under section
1401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 10.40
percent, and
(2) with respect to remuneration received during the
payroll tax holiday period, the rate of tax under 3101(a) of
such Code shall be 4.2 percent (including for purposes of
determining the applicable percentage under sections 3201(a)
and 3211(a)(1) of such Code).
(b) Coordination With Deductions for Employment Taxes.--
(1) Deduction in computing net earnings from self-
employment.--For purposes of applying section 1402(a)(12) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the rate of tax imposed by
subsection 1401(a) of such Code shall be determined without
regard to the reduction in such rate under this section.
(2) Individual deduction.--In the case of the taxes imposed
by section 1401 of such Code for any taxable year which
begins in the payroll tax holiday period, the deduction under
section 164(f) with respect to such taxes shall be equal to
the sum of--
(A) 59.6 percent of the portion of such taxes attributable
to the tax imposed by section 1401(a) (determined after the
application of this section), plus
(B) one-half of the portion of such taxes attributable to
the tax imposed by section 1401(b).
(c) Payroll Tax Holiday Period.--The term ``payroll tax
holiday period'' means calendar year 2011.
(d) Employer Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall notify employers of the payroll tax holiday period in
any manner the Secretary deems appropriate.
(e) Transfers of Funds.--
(1) Transfers to federal old-age and survivors insurance
trust fund.--There are hereby appropriated to the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the
reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the
application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the
preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund
at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the
extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to
such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.
(2) Transfers to social security equivalent benefit
account.--There are hereby appropriated to the Social
Security Equivalent Benefit Account established under section
15A(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C.
231n-1(a)) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the
Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a)(2).
Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be
transferred from the general fund at such times and in such
manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers
which would have occurred to such Account had such amendments
not been enacted.
(3) Coordination with other federal laws.--For purposes of
applying any provision of Federal law other than the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the rate of
tax in effect under section 3101(a) of such Code shall be
determined without regard to the reduction in such rate under
this section.
TITLE VII--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Energy
SEC. 701. INCENTIVES FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.
(a) Credits for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Used as
Fuel.--Subsection (g) of section 40A is amended by striking
``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Excise Tax Credits and Outlay Payments for Biodiesel
and Renewable Diesel Fuel Mixtures.--
(1) Paragraph (6) of section 6426(c) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6427(e)(6) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2011''.
(c) Special Rule for 2010.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in the case of any biodiesel mixture credit
properly determined under section 6426(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 for periods during 2010, such credit
shall be allowed, and any refund or payment attributable to
such credit (including any payment under section 6427(e) of
such Code) shall be made, only in such manner as the
Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall
provide. Such Secretary shall issue guidance within 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act providing for a
one-time submission of claims covering periods during 2010.
Such guidance shall provide for a 180-day period for the
submission of such claims (in such manner as prescribed by
such Secretary) to begin not later than 30 days after such
guidance is issued. Such claims shall be paid by such
Secretary not later than 60 days after receipt. If such
Secretary has not paid pursuant to a claim filed under this
subsection within 60 days after the date of the filing of
such claim, the claim shall be paid with interest from such
date determined by using the overpayment rate and method
under section 6621 of such Code.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 702. CREDIT FOR REFINED COAL FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 45(d)(8) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to facilities placed in service after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 703. NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 45L is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to homes acquired after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 704. EXCISE TAX CREDITS AND OUTLAY PAYMENTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURES.
(a) In General.--Sections 6426(d)(5), 6426(e)(3), and
6427(e)(6)(C) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
[[Page 22459]]
(b) Exclusion of Black Liquor From Credit Eligibility.--The
last sentence of section 6426(d)(2) is amended by striking
``or biodiesel'' and inserting ``biodiesel, or any fuel
(including lignin, wood residues, or spent pulping liquors)
derived from the production of paper or pulp''.
(c) Special Rule for 2010.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in the case of any alternative fuel credit
or any alternative fuel mixture credit properly determined
under subsection (d) or (e) of section 6426 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 for periods during 2010, such credit
shall be allowed, and any refund or payment attributable to
such credit (including any payment under section 6427(e) of
such Code) shall be made, only in such manner as the
Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall
provide. Such Secretary shall issue guidance within 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act providing for a
one-time submission of claims covering periods during 2010.
Such guidance shall provide for a 180-day period for the
submission of such claims (in such manner as prescribed by
such Secretary) to begin not later than 30 days after such
guidance is issued. Such claims shall be paid by such
Secretary not later than 60 days after receipt. If such
Secretary has not paid pursuant to a claim filed under this
subsection within 60 days after the date of the filing of
such claim, the claim shall be paid with interest from such
date determined by using the overpayment rate and method
under section 6621 of such Code.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 705. SPECIAL RULE FOR SALES OR DISPOSITIONS TO IMPLEMENT
FERC OR STATE ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING POLICY FOR
QUALIFIED ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to dispositions after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 706. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION
FOR OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL WELLS.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 613A(c)(6)(H) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 707. EXTENSION OF GRANTS FOR SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY
IN LIEU OF TAX CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1603 of division
B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2009 or 2010'' and
inserting ``2009, 2010, or 2011'', and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``after 2010'' and inserting ``after
2011'', and
(B) by striking ``2009 or 2010'' and inserting ``2009,
2010, or 2011''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (j) of section 1603
of division B of such Act is amended by striking ``2011'' and
inserting ``2012''.
SEC. 708. EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL USED AS
FUEL.
(a) Extension of Income Tax Credit for Alcohol Used as
Fuel.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 40(e) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' in subparagraph (A)
and inserting ``December 31, 2011'', and
(B) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
(2) Reduced amount for ethanol blenders.--Subsection (h) of
section 40 is amended by striking ``2010'' both places it
appears and inserting ``2011''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to periods after December 31, 2010.
(b) Extension of Excise Tax Credit for Alcohol Used as
Fuel.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (6) of section 6426(b) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to periods after December 31, 2010.
(c) Extension of Payment for Alcohol Fuel Mixture.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6427(e)(6) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to sales and uses after December 31, 2010.
(d) Extension of Additional Duties on Ethanol.--
(1) In general.--Headings 9901.00.50 and 9901.00.52 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each
amended in the effective period column by striking ``1/1/
2011'' and inserting ``1/1/2012''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on January 1, 2011.
SEC. 709. ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE CREDIT.
(a) Dishwashers.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(b) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
``(C) $25 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2011 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),
``(D) $50 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2011 and which uses no more than 295
kilowatt hours per year and 4.25 gallons per cycle (4.75
gallons per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater than
12 place settings), and
``(E) $75 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2011 and which uses no more than 280
kilowatt hours per year and 4 gallons per cycle (4.5 gallons
per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater than 12 place
settings).''.
(b) Clothes Washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(b) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C),
by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and
inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
``(E) $175 in the case of a top-loading clothes washer
manufactured in calendar year 2011 which meets or exceeds a
2.2 modified energy factor and does not exceed a 4.5 water
consumption factor, and
``(F) $225 in the case of a clothes washer manufactured in
calendar year 2011--
``(i) which is a top-loading clothes washer and which meets
or exceeds a 2.4 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
4.2 water consumption factor, or
``(ii) which is a front-loading clothes washer and which
meets or exceeds a 2.8 modified energy factor and does not
exceed a 3.5 water consumption factor.''.
(c) Refrigerators.--Paragraph (3) of section 45M(b) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C),
by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and
inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
``(E) $150 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in
calendar year 2011 which consumes at least 30 percent less
energy than the 2001 energy conservation standards, and
``(F) $200 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in
calendar year 2011 which consumes at least 35 percent less
energy than the 2001 energy conservation standards.''.
(d) Rebasing of Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(e) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting
``$25,000,000'', and
(B) by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(2) Exception for certain refrigerators and clothes
washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(e) is amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection (b)(3)(D)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(3)(F)'', and
(B) by striking ``subsection (b)(2)(D)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(2)(F)''.
(3) Gross receipts limitation.--Paragraph (3) of section
45M(e) is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and inserting ``4
percent''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a),
(b), and (c) shall apply to appliances produced after
December 31, 2010.
(2) Limitations.--The amendments made by subsection (d)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2010.
SEC. 710. CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.
(a) Extension.--Section 25C(g)(2) is amended by striking
``2010'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Return to Pre-ARRA Limitations and Standards.--
(1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 25C are
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
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--
``(1) 10 percent of the amount paid or incurred by the
taxpayer for qualified energy efficiency improvements
installed during such taxable year, and
``(2) the amount of the residential energy property
expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such
taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Lifetime limitation.--The credit allowed under this
section with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year
shall not exceed the excess (if any) of $500 over the
aggregate credits allowed under this section with respect to
such taxpayer for all prior taxable years ending after
December 31, 2005.
``(2) Windows.--In the case of amounts paid or incurred for
components described in subsection (c)(2)(B) by any taxpayer
for any taxable year, the credit allowed under this section
with respect to such amounts for such year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of $200 over the aggregate credits
allowed under this section with respect to such amounts for
all prior taxable years ending after December 31, 2005.
``(3) Limitation on residential energy property
expenditures.--The amount of the credit allowed under this
section by reason of subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed--
``(A) $50 for any advanced main air circulating fan,
``(B) $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil
furnace or hot water boiler, and
``(C) $300 for any item of energy-efficient building
property.''.
(2) Modification of standards.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 25C(c) is amended
by striking ``2000'' and all that follows through ``this
section'' and inserting ``2009 International Energy
Conservation Code, as such Code (including supplements) is in
effect on the date of the enactment of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009''.
[[Page 22460]]
(B) Wood stoves.--Subparagraph (E) of section 25C(d)(3) is
amended by striking ``, as measured using a lower heating
value''.
(C) Oil furnaces and hot water boilers.--
(i) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 25C(d) is amended
to read as follows:
``(4) Qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot
water boiler.--The term `qualified natural gas, propane, or
oil furnace or hot water boiler' means a natural gas,
propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler which achieves an
annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not less than
95.''.
(ii) Conforming amendment.--Clause (ii) of section
25C(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) a qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or
hot water boiler, or''.
(D) Exterior windows, doors, and skylights.--
(i) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 25C is amended
by striking paragraph (4).
(ii) Application of energy star standards.--Paragraph (1)
of section 25C(c) is amended by inserting ``an exterior
window, a skylight, an exterior door,'' after ``in the case
of'' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A).
(E) Insulation.--Subparagraph (A) of section 25C(c)(2) is
amended by striking ``and meets the prescriptive criteria for
such material or system established by the 2009 International
Energy Conservation Code, as such Code (including
supplements) is in effect on the date of the enactment of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009''.
(3) Subsidized energy financing.--Subsection (e) of section
25C is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Property financed by subsidized energy financing.--
For purposes of determining the amount of expenditures made
by any individual with respect to any property, there shall
not be taken into account expenditures which are made from
subsidized energy financing (as defined in section
48(a)(4)(C)).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2010.
SEC. 711. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 30C(g)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2010.
Subtitle B--Individual Tax Relief
SEC. 721. 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 2009'' and inserting ``2009, 2010,
or 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 722. DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 723. CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN REAL PROPERTY MADE
FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Clause (vi) of section 170(b)(1)(E) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Contributions by Certain Corporate Farmers and
Ranchers.--Clause (iii) of section 170(b)(2)(B) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 724. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND
RELATED EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 725. 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, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date; Special Rule.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
(2) Special rule.--For purposes of subsections (a)(6),
(b)(3), and (d)(8) of section 408 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, at the election of the taxpayer (at such time
and in such manner as prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury) any qualified charitable distribution made after
December 31, 2010, and before February 1, 2011, shall be
deemed to have been made on December 31, 2010.
SEC. 726. LOOK-THRU OF CERTAIN REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANY
STOCK IN DETERMINING GROSS ESTATE OF
NONRESIDENTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 727. PARITY FOR EXCLUSION FROM INCOME FOR EMPLOYER-
PROVIDED MASS TRANSIT AND PARKING BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 132(f) is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1,
2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to months after December 31, 2010.
SEC. 728. REFUNDS DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 65 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 6409. REFUNDS DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED
PROGRAMS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any refund (or advance payment with respect to a
refundable credit) made to any individual under this title
shall not be taken into account as income, and shall not be
taken into account as resources for a period of 12 months
from receipt, for purposes of determining the eligibility of
such individual (or any other individual) for benefits or
assistance (or the amount or extent of benefits or
assistance) under any Federal program or under any State or
local program financed in whole or in part with Federal
funds.
``(b) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
amount received after December 31, 2012.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 6409. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal
programs and federally assisted programs.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts received after December 31, 2009.
Subtitle C--Business Tax Relief
SEC. 731. RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 41(h)(1) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
45C(b)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 732. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 733. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45D(f) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E),
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F),
and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) $3,500,000,000 for 2010 and 2011.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 45D(f)
is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2016''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2009.
SEC. 734. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 735. MINE RESCUE TEAM TRAINING CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 45N is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 736. EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE
DUTY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45P is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 737. 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY FOR QUALIFIED
LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS, QUALIFIED RESTAURANT
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND QUALIFIED
RETAIL IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Clauses (iv), (v), and (ix) of section
168(e)(3)(E) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2010''
and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Clause (i) of section 168(e)(7)(A) is amended by
striking ``if such building is placed in service after
December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2010,''.
(2) Paragraph (8) of section 168(e) is amended by striking
subparagraph (E).
(3) Section 179(f)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(without regard to the dates specified in
subparagraph (A)(i) thereof)'' in subparagraph (B), and
[[Page 22461]]
(B) by striking ``(without regard to subparagraph (E)
thereof)'' in subparagraph (C).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 738. 7-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 739. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON
AN INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 740. 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, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 741. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
BOOK INVENTORIES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 742. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER INVENTORY FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 743. ELECTION TO EXPENSE MINE SAFETY EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 179E is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 744. SPECIAL EXPENSING RULES FOR CERTAIN FILM AND
TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 181 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to productions commencing after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 745. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 746. 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 4 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 6 taxable years''; and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January
1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 747. 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, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments received or accrued after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 748. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS OF REGULATED
INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) of section
871(k) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 749. RIC QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY TREATMENT UNDER
FIRPTA.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
take effect on January 1, 2010. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, such amendment shall not apply with respect to the
withholding requirement under section 1445 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 for any payment made before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) Amounts withheld on or before date of enactment.--In
the case of a regulated investment company--
(A) which makes a distribution after December 31, 2009, and
before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) which would (but for the second sentence of paragraph
(1)) have been required to withhold with respect to such
distribution under section 1445 of such Code,
such investment company shall not be liable to any person to
whom such distribution was made for any amount so withheld
and paid over to the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 750. EXCEPTIONS FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.
(a) In General.--Sections 953(e)(10) and 954(h)(9) are each
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 953(e)(10) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2009, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which any such
taxable year of such foreign corporation ends.
SEC. 751. LOOK-THRU TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN RELATED
CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER FOREIGN
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 954(c)(6) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2009, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which any such
taxable year of such foreign corporation ends.
SEC. 752. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPS MAKING
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 1367(a) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 753. EMPOWERMENT ZONE TAX INCENTIVES.
(a) In General.--Section 1391 is amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' in subsection
(d)(1)(A)(i) and inserting ``December 31, 2011''; and
(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (h)(2).
(b) Increased Exclusion of Gain on Stock of Empowerment
Zone Businesses.--Subparagraph (C) of section 1202(a)(2) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting
``December 31, 2016''; and
(2) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting
``2016''.
(c) Treatment of Certain Termination Dates Specified in
Nominations.--In the case of a designation of an empowerment
zone the nomination for which included a termination date
which is contemporaneous with the date specified in
subparagraph (A)(i) of section 1391(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect before the enactment of
this Act), subparagraph (B) of such section shall not apply
with respect to such designation if, after the date of the
enactment of this section, the entity which made such
nomination amends the nomination to provide for a new
termination date in such manner as the Secretary of the
Treasury (or the Secretary's designee) may provide.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 754. TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1400 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' each place it appears and
inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Tax-exempt DC Empowerment Zone Bonds.--Subsection (b)
of section 1400A is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009''
and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
(c) Zero-percent Capital Gains Rate.--
(1) Acquisition date.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (3)(A),
(4)(A)(i), and (4)(B)(i)(I) of section 1400B(b) are each
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(2) Limitation on period of gains.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 1400B(e) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting
``December 31, 2016''; and
(ii) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting
``2016''.
(B) Partnerships and s-corps.--Paragraph (2) of section
1400B(g) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
(d) First-time Homebuyer Credit.--Subsection (i) of section
1400C is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to periods after December 31, 2009.
(2) Tax-exempt dc empowerment zone bonds.--The amendment
made by subsection (b) shall apply to bonds issued after
December 31, 2009.
(3) Acquisition dates for zero-percent capital gains
rate.--The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply to
property acquired or substantially improved after December
31, 2009.
(4) Homebuyer credit.--The amendment made by subsection (d)
shall apply to homes purchased after December 31, 2009.
[[Page 22462]]
SEC. 755. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM
EXCISE TAXES TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United
States after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 756. AMERICAN SAMOA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT.
(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 4 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 6 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January
1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 757. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 51(c)(4) is
amended by striking ``August 31, 2011'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 758. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Section 54E(c)(1) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2008 and'' and inserting ``2008,'', and
(2) by inserting ``and $400,000,000 for 2011'' after
``2010,''.
(b) Repeal of Refundable Credit for QZABs.--Paragraph (3)
of section 6431(f) is amended by inserting ``determined
without regard to any allocation relating to the national
zone academy bond limitation for 2011 or any carryforward of
such allocation'' after ``54E)'' in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2010.
SEC. 759. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 163(h)(3)(E) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or accrued after December 31,
2010.
SEC. 760. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON
CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 1202(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January
1, 2012'', and
(2) by inserting ``and 2011'' after ``2010'' in the heading
thereof.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to stock acquired after December 31, 2010.
Subtitle D--Temporary Disaster Relief Provisions
PART
Subpart A--New York Liberty Zone
SEC. 761. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(d)(2) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2009.
Subpart B--GO Zone
SEC. 762. INCREASE IN REHABILITATION CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 1400N is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 763. LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES FOR BUILDINGS IN GO
ZONES.
Section 1400N(c)(5) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
SEC. 764. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (2)(D) and (7)(C) of section
1400N(a) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 702(d)(1) and 704(a)
of the Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 are each
amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
SEC. 765. BONUS DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION APPLICABLE TO THE GO
ZONE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 1400N(d) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' both places it
appears in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``December 31,
2011'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' in the heading and the
text of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
TITLE VIII--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
jointly submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by
the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage in the House acting first on this conference
report or amendment between the Houses.
SEC. 802. EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS.
(a) Statutory Paygo.--This Act is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2
U.S.C. 933(g)) except to the extent that the budgetary
effects of this Act are determined to be subject to the
current policy adjustments under sections 4(c) and 7 of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act.
(b) Senate.--In the Senate, this Act is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con.
Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2010.
(c) House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, every provision of this Act is expressly
designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go
principles except to the extent that any such provision is
subject to the current policy adjustments under section 4(c)
of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment is in order except the amendment
printed in the report accompanying House Resolution 1766, which may be
offered only by Representative Levin of Michigan or his designee and
shall not be debatable.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Levin
Mr. LEVIN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment printed in House Report 111-682 offered by Mr.
Levin:
Strike title III and insert the following:
TITLE III--TEMPORARY ESTATE TAX RELIEF
SEC. 301. REINSTATEMENT OF ESTATE TAX; REPEAL OF CARRYOVER
BASIS.
(a) In General.--Each provision of law amended by subtitle
A or E of title V of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended to read as such
provision would read if such subtitle had never been enacted.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--On and after January 1, 2011,
paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended to read as such paragraph would read if
section 521(b)(2) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never been enacted.
(c) Special Election With Respect to Estates of Decedents
Dying in 2010.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case
of an estate of a decedent dying after December 31, 2009, and
before January 1, 2011, the executor (within the meaning of
section 2203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) may elect
to apply such Code as though the amendments made by
subsection (a) do not apply with respect to chapter 11 of
such Code and with respect to property acquired or passing
from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b) of
such Code). Such election shall be made at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury or the
Secretary's delegate shall provide. Such an election once
made shall be revocable only with the consent of the
Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. For
purposes of section 2652(a)(1) of such Code, the
determination of whether any property is subject to the tax
imposed by such chapter 11 shall be made without regard to
any election made under this subsection.
(d) Extension of Time for Performing Certain Acts.--
(1) Estate tax.--In the case of the estate of a decedent
dying after December 31, 2009, and before the date of the
enactment of this Act, the due date for--
(A) filing any return under section 6018 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be
made on such a return) as such section is in effect after the
date of the enactment of this Act without regard to any
election under subsection (c),
(B) making any payment of tax under chapter 11 of such
Code, and
(C) making any disclaimer described in section 2518(b) of
such Code of an interest in property passing by reason of the
death of such decedent,
shall not be earlier than the date which is 9 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Generation-skipping tax.--In the case of any
generation-skipping transfer made after December 31, 2009,
and before the date of the enactment of this Act, the due
date for filing any return under section 2662 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be
made on such a return) shall not be earlier than the date
which is 9 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(e) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the amendments made by this section shall apply to
estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after
December 31, 2009.
SEC. 302. MODIFICATIONS TO ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-
SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES.
(a) Modifications to Estate Tax.--
[[Page 22463]]
(1) $3,500,000 applicable exclusion amount.--Subsection (c)
of section 2010 is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Applicable Credit Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
applicable credit amount is the amount of the tentative tax
which would be determined under section 2001(c) if the amount
with respect to which such tentative tax is to be computed
were equal to the applicable exclusion amount.
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable exclusion amount is $3,500,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2011, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(2) Maximum estate tax rate equal to 45 percent.--
Subsection (c) of section 2001 is amended--
(A) by striking ``Over $1,500,000'' and all that follows in
the table contained in paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``Over $1,500,000......................... $555,800 plus 45 percent of
the excess of such amount
over $1,500,000.'',
(B) by striking ``(1) In general.--'', and
(C) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Modifications of Gift Tax Rate.--
(1) In general.--On and after January 1, 2011, subsection
(a) of section 2502 is amended to read as such subsection
would read if section 511(d) of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never been enacted.
(2) Applicable exclusion amount for gift tax.--
(A) Inflation adjustment.--Section 2505 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Inflation Adjustment.--In the case of any calendar
year after 2011, the dollar amount in subsection (a)(1) shall
be increased by an amount equal to--
``(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by this paragraph
shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2011.
(c) Modification of Generation-skipping Transfer Tax.--In
the case of any generation-skipping transfer made after
December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2011, the applicable
rate determined under section 2641(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 shall be zero.
(d) Modifications of Estate and Gift Taxes to Reflect
Differences in Credit Resulting From Different Tax Rates.--
(1) Estate tax.--
(A) In general.--Section 2001(b)(2) is amended by striking
``if the provisions of subsection (c) (as in effect at the
decedent's death)'' and inserting ``if the modifications
described in subsection (g)''.
(B) Modifications.--Section 2001 is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Modifications to Gift Tax Payable to Reflect
Different Tax Rates.--For purposes of applying subsection
(b)(2) with respect to 1 or more gifts, the rates of tax
under subsection (c) in effect at the decedent's death shall,
in lieu of the rates of tax in effect at the time of such
gifts, be used both to compute--
``(1) the tax imposed by chapter 12 with respect to such
gifts, and
``(2) the credit allowed against such tax under section
2505, including in computing--
``(A) the applicable credit amount under section
2505(a)(1), and
``(B) the sum of the amounts allowed as a credit for all
preceding periods under section 2505(a)(2).''.
(2) Gift tax.--Section 2505(a) is amended by adding at the
end the following new flush sentence:
``For purposes of applying paragraph (2) for any calendar
year, the rates of tax in effect under section 2502(a)(2) for
such calendar year shall, in lieu of the rates of tax in
effect for preceding calendar periods, be used in determining
the amounts allowable as a credit under this section for all
preceding calendar periods.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2511 is amended by
striking subsection (c).
(f) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the amendments made by this section shall apply to
estates of decedents dying, generation-skipping transfers,
and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 303. APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET TO THIS TITLE.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall apply to the amendments made
by this title.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is not debatable.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 233, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 646]
AYES--194
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sablan
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--233
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
[[Page 22464]]
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Space
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walz
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lipinski
NOT VOTING--11
Berry
Brown (SC)
Gerlach
Granger
Johnson, E. B.
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
Pierluisi
Ryan (OH)
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 2341
Messrs. BRIGHT and HARE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Mr. SMITH of Washington changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 644, 645, and 646, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendment in order, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Altmire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate amendment to
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and
expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend
title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 1766, reported the Senate amendment back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution
1766, pending is a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.
The question is on the motion.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment will be
followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on House
Resolution 20, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 277,
noes 148, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 647]
AYES--277
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bright
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Delahunt
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Fattah
Foster
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffith
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Hodes
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Olson
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Polis (CO)
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Richardson
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Young (AK)
NOES--148
Ackerman
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Boyd
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Campbell
Capuano
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cummings
Dahlkemper
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hinchey
Hirono
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schmidt
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Berry
Brown (SC)
Granger
Johnson, E. B.
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 0000
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 22465]]
____________________
CALLING ON STATE DEPARTMENT TO LIST VIETNAM AS A RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
VIOLATOR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 20)
calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' with respect to
religious freedom, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, 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.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert any
extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 4853.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII
WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. POLIS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 111-685) on the resolution (H. Res. 1771) waiving a
requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration
of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and
providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Platts (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for until 3 p.m. today on
account of attending the funeral for Dallastown Mayor Beverly Scott.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The Speaker announced her signature to enrolled bills of the Senate
of the following titles:
S. 1405. An act to redesignate the Longfellow National
Historic Site, Massachusetts, as the ``Longfellow House-
Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.
S. 1774. An act for the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.
S. 4010. An act for the relief of Shigeru Yamada.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 5 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, December 17, 2010, at 9
a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
10956. A letter from the Director, National Institute of
Food and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Establishment of New Agency;
Revision of Delegations of Authority (RIN#: A-0521-AA63)
received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
10957. A letter from the Chairman, Council of Economic
Advisers, transmitting fifth report regarding the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act through the third quarter of
2010; to the Committee on Appropriations.
10958. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Restriction on Ball and Roller
Bearings (DFARS Case 2006-D029) (RIN: 0750-AG57) received
December 6, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
10959. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Restrictions on the Use of Mandatory
Arbitration Agreements (DFARS Case 2010-D004) (RIN: 0750-
AG70) received December 6, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
10960. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a report on transactions involving
U.S. exports to Angola pursuant to Section 2(b)(3) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
10961. A letter from the Chief, Public Safety & Homeland
Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Improving Public
Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, New 800 MHz Band
Plan for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands [WT Docket:
02-55] received December 6, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10962. A letter from the Policy Advisor/Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of the
Amateur Service Rules Governing Vanity and Club Station Call
Signs, Petition for Rule Making: Amateur Radio Service (Part
97), Petition to Change Part 97.19(c)(2) of the Amateur Radio
Service Rules [WT Docket No.: 09-209] received December 6,
2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
10963. A letter from the Chief, Policy and Rules Division,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Unlicensed Operation in the TV
Broadcast Bands, Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices
Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band [ET Docket No.: 04-186]
[ET Docket No.: 02-380] received December 6, 2010, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
10964. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting the Commission's sixth annual report
on Ethanol Market Concentration, pursuant to Section
1501(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
10965. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Model Application for Plant-
Specific Adoption of TSTF-431, Revision 3, ``Change In
Technical Specifications End States (BAW-2441)'', For Babcock
& Wilcox Reactor Plants Using The Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process received December 6, 2010, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
10966. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Miscellaneous Administrative
Changes [NRC-2009-0085] (RIN: 3150-AH49) received December 6,
2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
10967. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting Periodic Report on the National Emergency Caused
by the Lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979 for
February 26, 2010 -- August 25, 2010; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
10968. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting the Semiannual Management
Report to Congress for April 1, 2010 through September 30,
2010 and the Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the
same period, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act),
section 5(b); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
10969. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting Commission's Fiscal Year 2010 Agency
Financial Report; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
10970. A letter from the Director, Congressional Affairs,
Federal Election Commission, transmitting the Commission's
semiannual report from the office of the Inspector General
for the period April 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act), section 5(b); to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
10971. A letter from the Chairman, National Capital
Planning Commission, transmitting the Commission's
Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2010; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
10972. A letter from the Inspector General, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's Fiscal
Year 2010 Commercial and Inherently Governmental Activities
Inventories; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
10973. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting proposed legislation to enact a freeze
on civilian
[[Page 22466]]
basic pay for federal employees; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
10974. A letter from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement
Board, transmitting the Board's Performance and
Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2010, including the
Office of Inspector General's Auditor's Report; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
10975. A letter from the Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission, transmitting the Semiannual Report of the
Inspector General and a separate management report for the
period April 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act), section 5(b); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
10976. A letter from the Human Resources Specialist, United
States Tax Court, transmitting annual category rating report
for the years 2008 and 2009; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
10977. A letter from the Clerk, United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, transmitting an opinion of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 08-
51299 United States v. Ravis Neal Key (March 5, 2010); to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
10978. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting notification that funding
under Title V, subsection 503(b)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, has
exceeded $5 million for the cost of response and recovery
efforts for FEMA-3315-EM in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5193; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10979. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Bulk Solid Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with the
International Martime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code [Docket
No.: USCG-2009-0091] (RIN: 1628-AB47) received December 8,
2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10980. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, Beaufort, SC [Docket No.: USCG-2009-1075] (RIN:
1625-AA09) received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10981. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals, Lower Colorado River,
Lake Havasu, AZ [Docket No.: USCG-2010-0509] (RIN: 1625-AA00)
received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10982. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; Interstate 5 Bridge Repairs, Columbia River,
Portland, OR [Docket No.: USCG-2010-0895] (RIN: 1625-AA00)
received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10983. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; New York Air Show at Jones Beach State Park,
Atlantic Ocean off of Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY [Docket No.:
USCG-2010-0138] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 8, 2010,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10984. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous
Cargoes [Docket No.: USCG-2004-19963] (RIN: 1625-AA93)
received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10985. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Special Local Regulation; Monongahela River, Pittsburgh,
PA [Docket No.: USCG-2010-0534] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received
December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10986. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Security Zones; Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone;
Technical amendment [Docket No.: USCG-2010-0821] (RIN: 1625-
AA87) received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10987. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Regulated Navigation Area; Reserved Channel, Boston
Harbor, Boston, MA [Docket No.: USCG-2010-0886] (RIN: 1625-
AA00) received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10988. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Patuxent
River, Solomons, MD [Docket No.: USCG-2010-0383] (RIN: 1625-
AA08) received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10989. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; Fireworks for USS GRAVELY Commissioning
Ceremony, Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC [Docket No.: USCG-
2010-0917] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 8, 2010,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10990. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Security Zone: Passenger Vessels, Sector Southeastern New
England Captain of the Port Zone [USCG-2010-0864] (RIN: 1625-
AA87) received December 8, 2010, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10991. A letter from the Administrator, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Transportation Statistics
Annual Report 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 111(f); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10992. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health
and Human Services, transmitting the Department's report on
the Fiscal Year 2007 Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program in accordance with section 2610 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981, as amended; jointly to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor.
10993. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health
and Human Services, transmitting letter concerning the report
mandated by Section 131(d) of the Medicare Improvements for
Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA); jointly to the Committees
on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. WAXMAN: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4678. A
bill to require foreign manufacturers of products imported
into the United States to establish registered agents in the
United States who are authorized to accept service of process
against such manufacturers, and for other purposes; with an
amendment (Rept. 111-683, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. CONYERS: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1064. A bill
to provide for evidence-based and promising practices related
to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity
prevention and intervention to help build individual, family,
and community strength and resiliency to ensure that youth
lead productive, safe, healthy, gang-free, and law-abiding
lives; with an amendment (Rept. 111-688, Pt. 1). Ordered to
be printed.
[Filed on December 17 (legislative day of December 16), 2010]
Mr. McGOVERN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1771.
Resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported
from the Committee on Rules, and providing for consideration
of motions to suspend the rules (Rept. 111-684). Referred to
the House Calendar.
____________________
REPORTED BILLS SEQUENTIALLY REFERRED
Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the
Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:
Mr. FRANK: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3817. A
bill to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with
additional authorities to protect investors from violations
of the securities laws, and for other purposes; with an
amendment, (Rept. 111-687, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee
on Judiciary for a period ending not later than December 17,
2010, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X.
Mr. FRANK: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3818. A
bill to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require
advisers of certain unregistered investment companies to
register with and provide information to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and for other purposes, with an
amendment; (Rept. 111-686, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee
on Agriculture for a period ending not later than December
17, 2010, for consideration of such provisions of the bill
and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clause 1(a) of rule X.
Mr. FRANK: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3890. A
bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to enhance
oversight of nationally recognized statistical rating
organizations, and for other purposes; with an amendment;
(Rept. 111-685, Pt. 1); referred to
[[Page 22467]]
the Committee on Judiciary for a period ending not later than
December 17, 2010, for consideration of such provisions of
the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of
that committee pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILLS
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the following action was taken by
the Speaker:
H.R. 1064. Referral to the Committees on Education and
Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services for a
period ending not later than December 17, 2010.
H.R. 4678. Referral to the Committees on Ways and Means and
Agriculture extended for a period ending not later than
December 17, 2010.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. DICKS:
H.R. 6527. A bill to provide the Quileute Indian Tribe
Tsunami and Flood Protection, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. WALZ (for himself and Mrs. Myrick):
H.R. 6528. A bill to provide for improvement of field
emergency medical services, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. MOORE of Kansas:
H.R. 6529. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to
provide for a Federal license for reinsurers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. Bono Mack, Ms. Eshoo,
Mr. Cole, Mr. Kildee, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. Grijalva):
H.R. 6530. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to establish a position for a representative of Indian Tribes
on the Joint Board overseeing the implementation of universal
service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. King of
New York, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H.R. 6531. A bill to amend the Securities Investor
Protection Act of 1970 to determine a customer's net equity
based on the customer's last statement, to prohibit certain
recoveries, to change how trustees are appointed, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. ELLISON:
H.R. 6532. A bill to amend the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act to establish certain procedures with
respect to blocking property of charities; to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. DOYLE (for himself and Mr. Terry):
H.R. 6533. A bill to implement the recommendations of the
Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress
regarding low-power FM service, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. DOYLE (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Adler of New Jersey, Mr. Altmire, Mr.
Arcuri, Mr. Baca, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Boccieri, Mr. Boswell,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
Chandler, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Critz, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Cummings, Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Donnelly
of Indiana, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Ellison, Mr.
Farr, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee,
Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hall of
New York, Mrs. Halvorson, Mr. Hare, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr.
Bartlett, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Blackburn,
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Brown of South Carolina,
Mr. Buyer, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cao, Mr. Carter, Mr.
Castle, Mr. Coble, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mr. Cole,
Mr. Conaway, Mr. Dent, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Fleming, Mr.
Fortenberry, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr.
Gerlach, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Graves of
Georgia, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Herger,
Mr. King of New York, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Kingston,
Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. LaTourette,
Mr. Lee of New York, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Manzullo, Mr.
McCaul, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holden, Mr. Holt,
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Israel, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr.
Kanjorski, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Kilroy, Mr.
Kind, Mr. Kratovil, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lipinski, Mrs.
Lowey, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Maffei, Mrs. Maloney, Ms.
Markey of Colorado, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. McMahon, Mr.
Meeks of New York, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr.
Moore of Kansas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Murphy
of Connecticut, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Nye, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Ortiz, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Mr. Perriello, Mr.
Pierluisi, Mr. Polis, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Quigley, Mr.
Reyes, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman of New
Jersey, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan of
Ohio, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
McKeon, Mr. Mica, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Miller
of Florida, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Paulsen, Mr. Petri, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Platts, Mr. Price
of Georgia, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Rooney, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Schock, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr.
Smith of Texas, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Sullivan, Mr.
Tiahrt, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Turner, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Walden, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Schauer, Mr. Scott
of Georgia, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Shuler, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Speier, Mr. Stupak,
Ms. Sutton, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Teague, Mr. Thompson of
California, Ms. Titus, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Towns, Ms.
Tsongas, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Velazquez, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Walz, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Weiner, Mr.
Welch, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 6534. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the National
Baseball Hall of Fame; to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. RUSH:
H.R. 6535. A bill to advance the mutual interests of the
United States and Africa with respect to the promotion of
trade and investment and the advancement of socioeconomic
development and opportunity, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 6536. A bill to authorize the Department of Labor's
voluntary protection program and to expand the program to
include more small businesses; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia:
H.R. 6537. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act and other Acts to improve Medicare and
other benefits for beneficiaries with kidney disease, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. MACK:
H.R. 6538. A bill to prevent pending tax increases and to
permanently repeal the estate tax; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.R. 6539. A bill to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 to promote nutrition, to increase access to food, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Berman, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, and Mr. Turner):
H. Con. Res. 335. Concurrent resolution honoring the
exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and
recognizing the significant contributions he has made to
United States national security, humanitarian causes, and
peaceful resolutions of international conflict; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. TURNER:
H. Res. 1770. A resolution honoring the passing of the
Honorable Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke, a top ranking
United States diplomat, magazine editor, author, professor,
Peace Corps official, and investment banker; to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Bishop
of Utah, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. McHenry, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Tiahrt,
Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Neugebauer, Mr. Olson, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Latta, Mr.
Pitts, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Rooney, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Stearns,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Graves of
Georgia, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, and Mr. Herger):
H. Res. 1772. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to require House officers and employees to
take
[[Page 22468]]
annual factual training on the Constitution; to the Committee
on Rules.
By Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Larson
of Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr.
Himes):
H. Res. 1773. A resolution recognizing the need to improve
physical access to many United States postal facilities for
all people in the United States in particular disabled
citizens; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Education and
Labor, the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Transportation
and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida,
and Mr. Sires):
H. Res. 1774. A resolution recognizing Cuban-Americans in
the United States; 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. 796: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1034: Ms. Sutton and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 1475: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2262: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 3765: Mr. Issa and Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 3907: Ms. Giffords.
H.R. 4946: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 5575: Mr. Bachus and Mr. Jones.
H.R. 5807: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 5833: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 6045: Mr. Olver.
H.R. 6074: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 6147: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 6241: Ms. Norton and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 6377: Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 6415: Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 6459: Mr. Ruppersberger and Mr. Murphy of New York.
H.R. 6513: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H.R. 6521: Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Wolf,
Mr. Platts, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Reichert.
H.J. Res. 97: Mr. Calvert.
H.J. Res. 100: Mr. Cole.
H.J. Res. 103: Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
H. Con. Res. 331: Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Pascrell.
H. Res. 1122: Mr. Honda and Ms. DeGette.
H. Res. 1377: Mrs. Davis of California and Mr. Cardoza.
H. Res. 1461: Mr. Guthrie, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Loretta
Sanchez of California, Mr. Baird, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Honda, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Costa, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H. Res. 1709: Mr. Reyes and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H. Res. 1722: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H. Res. 1762: Mr. Peters.
[[Page 22469]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING BRAD ABORN
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Brad Aborn upon his retirement as the Mariposa County
Supervisor for District 1.
Mr. Aborn has served on the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
since January 2007. During his time on the Board, Mr. Aborn worked
tirelessly to serve Mariposa County. He was involved in a number of
County projects, including: the Yosemite West Community Plan, the
SilverTip Resort project amended site plan application, the new Human
Services facility, acquisition of new fire engines and water tenders,
funding for 3 new fire stations, obtaining a Fixed Base Operator to
oversee the Mariposa/Yosemite Airport, construction of the Red Cloud
Library, improvements for Midpines Park, Airport improvement projects,
the Seventh Day Adventist Camp project, fuel load reduction projects,
road maintenance projects, Agri-nature and Agri-tourism policy,
Williamson Act/historical parcels, and the AB 885 statewide issue
regarding well and septic system inspections. Mr. Aborn also served as
the Board's chair in 2009.
Besides his work on the Board, Mr. Aborn has served the County in a
number of other ways. He was the chair of the Local Transportation
Commission and the vice president and then president of the Mariposa
County Public Financing Corporation.
Mr. Aborn is a dedicated patriot and family man. Before joining the
Board, he served in the military for 24 years, first on active duty and
then in the reserves. Brad, his wife Irene and their three children now
spend their time on the Flying A Ranch, where they breed and raise
champion Arabian horses.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Brad Aborn for his dedicated
service to the people of Mariposa County. I invite my colleagues to
join me in wishing Mr. Aborn many years of continued success.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF KAREN LADD
______
HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Karen Ladd for
her outstanding contributions to Arkansas students. Karen's efforts in
the classroom earned her the highest recognition our Nation's
kindergarten through 12th grade mathematics and science teachers may
receive for outstanding teaching, the Presidential Awards for
Excellence for Mathematics and Science Teaching.
A Chemistry, Advanced Placement Chemistry, and Physics teacher at
Nettleton High School, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Karen exemplifies what
it means to be an outstanding educator. Teaching for 33 years, Karen
constantly works to challenge her students to succeed, receiving many
classroom grants to provide her students with additional resources.
Karen's teaching is held in high regard and her work inspires her
colleagues to do their best to encourage further development in the
classroom. Her leadership has helped teachers in her region through the
Constructing Physics Understanding and Modeling Physics workshops as
well as mentoring other teachers. Karen is working to improve science
education and help other teachers use innovative methods in the
classroom.
I would like to offer my appreciation for the work of Karen Ladd and
her determination to provide her students with the best science
education as we work to maintain America's global competitiveness in
science.
____________________
CALPERS DETAILS SEVERAL KEY WAYS THE HEALTH REFORM LAW IS HELPING THEIR
MEMBERS
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise to share a letter written to the
Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
last week. In this letter, copied below, the CEO for the California
Public Employees Retirement System, CalPERS, details several key ways
the health reform law is already helping their members.
CalPERS is the largest non-federal purchaser of health benefits in
the country outside of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program,
FEHBP. They highlight expanded coverage for young adults, removal of
lifetime limits on benefits, and assistance with the costs of retiree
health benefits as three key ways reform is already making a
difference.
Republicans refuse to look at the benefits of health reform and are
continuing to insist they will ``repeal ObamaCare.''
President Obama should be proud to have the right wing label health
reform with his name. As this CalPERS example shows, health reform is
expanding and improving health coverage already. As time moves forward,
the benefits to working families, small businesses, and large companies
only increase.
Executive Office, CalPers,
Sacramento, CA, December 10, 2010.
Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Sebelius: As the nation's largest non-
federal purchaser of health care, the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) has a keen interest in
national health care reform. From the beginning, CalPERS
supported the reform necessary to contain costs for employers
and their employees while maintaining quality health care.
Many health care elements we have championed, such as
guaranteed issue policies; eliminating co-pays for preventive
services; bans on pre-existing conditions; stabilizing health
premiums; supporting innovative delivery system reforms; and
patient protection against medical bankruptcies are now major
components of health care reform.
We believe that key elements of national health care reform
represent a fundamental and positive shift in the way health
care will be purchased and delivered in the United States.
Together, they will dramatically shape the future of health
care in our country and ultimately benefit everyone.
During our recent open enrollment period, CalPERS
emphasized the benefits of many health care reform
provisions--including extension of dependent coverage,
elimination of lifetime limits, and the Early Retiree
Reinsurance Program. We are writing to share some of our
implementation successes.
(1) Extension of Dependent Coverage to Age 26
In recognition of young adults' need for health care
coverage, CalPERS launched a massive communication effort to
educate and inform employers and members of the extended
dependent coverage benefit. We developed special enrollment
teams, published communication materials, posted information
on our website, and issued press releases highlighting this
new health care reform provision.
Our efforts successfully resulted in more than 27,000 young
adults being added to their parents' health plans effective
January 1, 2011. Best of all, adding them to our program
resulted in a 2011 health insurance premium increase of less
than 1 percent. Families can now rest easier in these
uncertain economic times knowing their dependents, regardless
of marital status, can be covered up to age 26.
(2) Removal of Lifetime Limits
Most CalPERS health insurance plans have never included
lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits. Further, we
proactively monitored our members who were enrolled in the
few health plans that did include lifetime limits, so we
could work with them to change plans when they approached
these limits.
As a result of health care reform, CalPERS has removed
lifetime limits from all our plans that had included them,
and now our members enjoy more health plan options and less
financial risk.
(3) Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP)
For years, CalPERS health plans have included wellness and
disease management
[[Page 22470]]
programs that promote prevention and manage chronic
conditions. These programs, now required of ERRP
participants, mitigate the on-going fiscal impact of caring
for an older population. It's encouraging that these programs
can reduce costs.
Notwithstanding this success, approximately 24 percent of
our non-Medicare medical and pharmaceutical costs are
associated with early retiree health liability. Recognizing
this, the Affordable Care Act included much needed provisions
for relief from these costs. CalPERS 2010 health premium
rates reflected the lowest increase in 14 years.
In anticipation of the Department of Health and Human
Services certifying our ERRP application, CalPERS proactively
negotiated 2011 health plan contracts that reduced premium
increases by more than 3 percent for our non-Medicare plans.
We estimate ERRP will provide premium savings of
approximately $200 million based on reimbursement related to
more than 115,000 early retirees and their spouses, surviving
spouses, and dependents.
We thank you for expeditiously implementing important
health care reform provisions and we are committed to being a
collaborative partner in ensuring the smooth and successful
implementation in the months and years ahead.
If you have any questions regarding our program, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Anne Stausboll,
Chief Executive Officer.
____________________
HONORING VETERAN NEWSPAPER JOURNALIST TYLER WHITLEY FOR 50 YEARS OF
EXCEPTIONAL WORK AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA-AREA NEWSPAPERS
______
HON. ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor veteran
Richmond Times-Dispatch journalist Tyler Whitley. Mr. Whitley has been
a newspaper reporter in Richmond, Virginia, for the last 50 years. He
has spent 40 of those years covering the Virginia General Assembly,
including the 15 years that I served there.
Mr. Whitley, a Virginia native, is a graduate of Hampden-Sydney
College in Hampden-Sydney, Virginia. He started his career in 1960 as
an obituary writer at the Richmond News Leader. He later became
business editor at the News Leader. In 1992, he joined the Times-
Dispatch when the News Leader and the Times-Dispatch merged into a
single morning newspaper. He has covered nine governors, fourteen
national political conventions, and four redistrictings. He has also
traveled to ten countries on assignment.
Mr. Whitley is well-respected by journalists and politicians in
Virginia. He is affectionately referred to as the dean of the Virginia
capitol press corps. Last week, several journalists and editors,
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and former Virginia Governors James
Gilmore, L. Douglas Wilder, Gerald Baliles and Linwood Hilton gathered
to honor Mr. Whitley. The presence of these Governors at Mr. Whitley's
50th anniversary celebration is a testament to the admirable
professional legacy he has built in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
``If it's true that reporters write the first draft of history, then
Tyler has written a lot of history,'' former Governor Baliles told the
Washington Post.
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Tyler Whitley for 50 years
of exceptional journalism.
____________________
HONORING MARY WILLIAMS
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Mary Williams upon her retirement as the Mariposa County
Community Services Director.
Mrs. Williams began her career with Mariposa County on September 1,
1988 as Extra-Help Senior Services Information and Referral Specialist.
She was hired full-time on September 1, 1989, as Assistant Veterans'
Services Officer. Over the years, Mrs. Williams was reclassified a
number of times, first as a Veteran/Senior Services Assistant in 1990,
then as Community Services Deputy Director on October 1, 1993. On
August 3, 1998, Mrs. Williams was appointed Community Services
Director.
Mrs. Williams worked tirelessly for the citizens of Mariposa County.
Among the many projects she was involved in, Mrs. Williams provided
senior services, senior nutrition, transit, outreach and support for
seniors, education seminars and special events of help and interest to
seniors; arranged for the first restaurant meal program for seniors;
was responsible for overseeing the scheduling and implementing of
activities and programs for seniors such as the annual Senior
Exposition, the Senior Prom and Thanksgiving dinner; organized a wide
variety of fundraisers; and overseeing the Veterans' Services which
provides assistance to Veterans, their dependents, survivors and the
general public in obtaining benefits from Federal, State, and local
agencies administering programs for Veterans, to name only a few.
Besides her commitments to Mariposa County Community Services, Mrs.
Williams also served as a member of a number of groups, including the
Future Farmers of America/Western Days and the Farm Bureau, was
appointed a member of the Fair Board by the Governor and has worked
actively with the Junior Livestock Auction Committee since its
formation. Mrs. Williams recently celebrated 50 years of marriage to
her husband Kenny and they both look forward to spending more time with
their family upon her retirement.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Williams for her dedicated
service to the people of Mariposa County. I invite my colleagues to
join me in wishing Mrs. Williams many years of continued success.
____________________
A SALUTE TO WOMEN IN DEFENSE
______
HON. MARK S. CRITZ
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Women In Defense, A
National Security Organization that will celebrate its twenty-fifth
anniversary this Sunday, December 19, 2010.
Women In Defense began in the fall of 1979 as the brainchild of seven
dynamic women, Margo Giordano Anderson, Karen Hopkins, Betty Kimmel,
JoHanna Kinley, Diane Lafferman, Lillian Morris, and Rebekah
Nottingham. They met and discussed the idea of starting an informal
network to assist participants, especially women, in expanding their
knowledge of national security issues and of the national defense
community in which they participated. The association was incorporated
as a nonprofit 501(c)(6) on December 19, 1985.
For 25 years, Women In Defense has provided women a formal
environment for professional growth through networking, education, and
career development. Its 3,000 members, and 16 chapters throughout the
United States, cultivates and supports the advancement and recognition
of women in all aspects of national security. Women In Defense also
offers the HORIZONS Scholarship, which was established in 1988 to
encourage women to pursue careers related to the national security and
defense interests, and to provide development opportunities to women
already working in these fields.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate Women In Defense for the dramatic
impact it has had on professionals who serve the national defense and
national security of our nation. Its numerous successes have elevated
the presence and stature of women in industry and military leadership.
Because of their efforts, the United States benefits from a workforce
that is better equipped to serve our great nation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE PENCE
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor on the
legislative day of December 14, 2010. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 628 and 630, and ``no'' on rollcall
vote 629.
____________________
THE HALL OF FAME IN HONOR OF AN AMERICAN HERO SPC TIM HALL 173 AIRBORNE
BRIGADE, THE UNITED STATES ARMY
______
HON. DEAN HELLER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. HELLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic sacrifice
and service of
[[Page 22471]]
SPC Tim Hall of the 173rd Airborne Brigade of the United States Army.
On June 10, 2010, SPC Hall of Reno, Nevada, was severely wounded by a
mortar attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. Although he was severely injured
and lost both of his legs, SPC Hall continues his courageous effort on
the road to recovery. My sincere gratitude, appreciation, and thoughts
are with SPC Hall and all of our service members as they continue to
heroically and selflessly sacrifice for our Nation. I am honored to
represent SPC Hall and his family in Nevada's 2nd Congressional
District. I am proud to submit a poem penned in his honor by Albert
Caswell for the Record.
The Hall of Fame
In our country Tis of Thee. . . .
All in this our Nation of the free . . .
But stand, the greatest of all Americans indeed. . . .
Are but all of those who go off the war, for you and me. . .
.
The ones who answer That Call To Arms . . .
Who put themselves, and their families all in such heartache
and grave harm. . . .
To our Nation's Hall of Fame, belong. . . .
The ones who now so lie in the soft cold dark graves, so all
alone. . . .
And all of those others who come back home. . . .
Without arms and legs, and burns upon their bodies own. . . .
Our best and our brightest, our very bravest who so fight
this. . . .
Her most magnificent names. . . . are all but in our Nation's
Hall of Fame!
Men, like SPC Tim Hall. . . . of the 173 Airborne, who stood
tall. . . .
As a mortar attack, left him dying. . . .
As it was but then his brave heart to him, started crying. .
. .
Not to give up or to give in. . . . as this warriors new
battle would begin!
With his two fine legs gone, he told himself it was time to
move on. . . .
Get Up. . . . Get Moving. . . . Get Airborne!
As so deep down in his heart, so worn. . . .
Was the courage and the faith, to somehow move on. . .
Another Hall of Famer born. . . . with his profiles in
courage soars . . .
To new heights. . . . To Teach Us. . . . To So Beseech Us. .
. . oh Tim what form!
As he so Reaches Us, and somehow carries on!
As one of Nevada's Finest Sons. . . .
There's gold in his heart, this one!
For this man is Army Strong!
Hoooah, for in his heart beats such a song!
A song of Strength In Honor, all day and all night long!
And if I had a son, I wish he but shine like this one. . . .
As thy will be done, for he's in The Hall of Fame this son!
Showing us all to what new heights a heart can run!
America's Son!
So on this Christmas morning as you awake. . . .
Or during the Festival of lights, would you so take. . . .
So take the time to remember, all of these. . . .
Selfless Souls, who so bring us peace!
Who our Nation's Hall will never cease!
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF JUDGE FRANK BELL FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL
COURT OF FLORIDA
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Judge Frank
Bell, upon his retirement from presiding on the county and circuit
benches for the past 38 years. Judge Bell spent his career serving the
northwest Florida community, and I am proud to recognize his dedication
and service.
Judge Bell was born and raised in Pensacola, Florida. After
graduating from Pensacola High School, Judge Bell enlisted in the Army.
After serving on active duty and in the reserves, Judge Bell attended
the University of Southern Mississippi, where he received a B.S. in
accounting. He furthered his education at the Cumberland School of Law,
Samford University, where he graduated in 1966.
Judge Bell returned to his native Pensacola to practice law. He
worked as a sole practitioner, in addition to prosecuting both capital
and non-capital cases. In 1972, he was chosen by the people of Escambia
County, Florida to serve as a County Judge, and in 1985 he was
appointed to the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, a job which
Judge Bell has carried out with honor and distinction for 25 years.
Judge Bell adheres to the judicial philosophy that impartiality must
be preserved to ensure fairness in our legal system. In Judge Bell's
view, it is of the upmost importance that judges ``convince the
litigants that all we want is a fair fight for the party.'' Some
Americans view the justice system with fear and trepidation; however,
Judge Bell believes that when citizens experience a fair and impartial
judiciary firsthand their opinions change completely. According to
Judge Bell, citizens, ``after serving on a jury where they see the
system work, they develop a positive attitude.'' Judge Bell's
unwavering commitment to upholding the law in an unbiased manner is a
prime example of our legal system working at its best and is a great
credit to his beloved community.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am honored
to recognize Judge Frank Bell for his service to northwest Florida and
to the United States of America.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RAY ABRIL, JR.
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask Congress to pay tribute
to an outstanding friend, mentor and community leader, Mr. Ray Abril,
Jr. Ray passed away on December 14, 2010.
Born in Colton, California on June 5, 1932, Ray was raised in South
Colton where he dedicated his life to his community and to the
improvement of education in the Colton Joint Unified School District.
Ray graduated from Colton High School in 1950. A veteran of the
Korean War, he courageously served four years in the Navy.
Ray first became involved in education in the early 1970's, motivated
to serve because of the poor state of many local schools at the time.
In 1973 he won his first election to the Colton Joint Unified School
Board.
Ray often liked to joke that he had a PhD from USC, ``The University
of South Colton.'' Throughout his 28 year career with the Colton School
Board, Ray played an important part in improving schools. During his
time as board member he worked to improve student performance, enhance
school safety and increase the number of college-bound students.
A strong advocate for education, Ray was instrumental in advising me
on many legislative policy decisions over the years, including my PROUD
Act. As a board member, Ray became affectionately known as ``The
Godfather of the Colton Joint Unified School District.'' He held the
office of Clerk for thirteen years and served as Board President for
six years. Ray retired from the Colton Joint Unified Board of Education
after 28 years of dedicated service.
Because of Ray's lifelong commitment to education, the Colton Joint
Unified School Board decided to recognize him by including his name in
the campus of the new high school in Grand Terrace. When complete, the
school will be known as the Grand Terrace High School at the Ray Abril,
Jr. Educational Complex.
An active member of the community, Ray was involved in a number of
organizations including the San Bernardino Countywide Gangs and Drugs
Task Force, the Knights of Columbus and the San Bernardino County
Superintendent of Schools Advisory Committee. Ray was also a co-founder
of the Mexican-American Parent & Student Organization, a group that
advocated educational improvements in Colton.
His legacy of work on local issues such as the BNSF rail crossing and
his founding of Colton First had a lasting impact on communities across
the Inland Empire. After his many years of service, Ray was awarded the
Assistance League of San Bernardino's ``Living Legend Award'' during
its 50th anniversary celebration.
Ray was a loving family man. He and his beloved wife Hortensia were
married for 53 years before her unfortunate passing. Ray leaves behind
his daughters Melinda Medina, Rebecca Gonzales, Nellie Carnero as well
as his three sons, Nick, Michael and Dominic. He also leaves behind 19
grandchildren and 29 great-grandchildren.
The thoughts and prayers of my wife, Barbara, Mayor pro tem Joe Baca,
Jr., Jeremy, Natalie, Jennifer and I are with his family at this time.
I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering a superb American citizen
and dedicated community leader. He will be greatly missed and I extend
my sincere condolences to his extended family upon the very sad loss of
Mr. Ray Abril, Jr.
[[Page 22472]]
____________________
HONORING SYLVIA L. WARNER
_____
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Sylvia L. Warner for her outstanding service to the people of
Michigan's Eighth Congressional District.
Ms. Warner was born and raised in Roanoke, Virginia. After graduating
from Jefferson Senior High School, she began her career in journalism
at the Belding Banner where she worked from 1969 through 1973. In her
dual role as photographer and reporter, she covered local news in
Michigan's Ionia County. It was during this time that she developed her
passion for journalism and honed many of her reporting talents.
After leaving the Belding Banner in 1973, she joined The Daily News
in Greenville, Michigan. Ms. Warner was promoted through the ranks at
the paper where she held several positions. She began as the local
reporter for the Family Living Section, then the Managing Editor ending
her career with the paper as the Editor. Ms. Warner was instrumental in
managing a 10 member staff of reporters and photographers. After 20
years of editorial work focusing on local news and events, Ms. Warner
left the publication to pursue other interests.
In 1993, Ms. Warner moved to Lansing, Michigan, and combined her
editorial expertise with her passion for politics. She joined the
Michigan House Majority Communications Office as a Communications
Specialist. Her experience with local and community communications
proved to be invaluable to the freshmen House members she was assigned
to assist. In 1997, Ms. Warner joined the Michigan Senate Majority
Communications Office as Senior Writer and Media Specialist. She was
tasked with coordinating special media events and supervising junior
writers.
In 1999, I was honored to have Ms. Warner join my Senate Majority
Floor Leadership office. She quickly became an invaluable member of my
staff. With Ms. Warner's experience and guidance, my ability to
communicate and work with media was dramatically improved.
In 2000, when I decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives,
I enlisted Ms. Warner's expertise to serve as my press secretary. With
the guidance of a talented team I became the U.S. Representative to
Michigan's Eighth Congressional District. This would not have been
possible without the years of experience, guidance and faith of such
talented people like Ms. Warner.
Since my first congressional race, Ms. Warner has served as an
exceptional Press Secretary and has been a cornerstone of my team.
After many years of dedicated service, she has decided to move to
Michigan to be closer to her children, grandchildren and great
grandchild.
I, along with the constituents of Michigan's Eighth District, owe
Sylvia Warner a debt of gratitude for her unwavering commitment to
public and civic service throughout the years. She will be greatly
missed.
I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sylvia L. Warner for her
service and wish her the best in her retirement.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PATTY BENTLEY
______
HON. WILLIAM L. OWENS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Patty
Bentley of Plattsburgh, New York on her retirement after 41 years as a
librarian at Plattsburgh State and other institutions.
Patty was born in Kentucky, spent her early childhood in Michigan,
and began her career as a medical librarian at the University of
Cincinnati in 1970. Since 1977, she has worked to improve the quality
of education for upstate New York students at Plattsburgh State. For 34
years, she has served to make her community a better place by
volunteering countless hours with various local organizations. Simply
put, Plattsburgh would not be what it is today without her tireless
efforts.
I have the privilege of calling Patty my friend, and I continue to
look to her for guidance on local issues. At the end of this year,
Patty will become a retiree, but I am confident that she will never
stop serving the community. Mr. Speaker, I thank Patty Bentley for her
years of service and congratulate her on 41 wonderful years on the job.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on
December 15, 2011. If I was present, I would have voted on the
following: H.R. 5446--rollcall No. 631--``yea''; H. Res. 1759--rollcall
No. 632--``yea''; S. Con. Res. 72--rollcall No. 633--``yea''; H.R.
6205--rollcall No. 634--``yea''; H. Res. 1764--rollcall No. 635--
``yea''; H. Res. 1761--rollcall No. 636--``yea''; H. Res. 1743--
rollcall No. 637--``yea''; H.R. 2965--rollcall No. 638--``yea.''
____________________
HONORING DON SIMMS
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Don Simms upon his retirement as the Assistant District
Supervisor for the Wildlife Services Central District.
Mr. Simms began his career with the USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services as
an Animal Damage Control Trapper in 1971 in Mariposa County. He
eventually left Mariposa County and worked in a number of places in the
state and country, including Santa Clara County, Modoc County, San
Diego County at the San Diego Wild Animal Park on the wild cheetah
project, Alameda County, San Mateo County, and finally on Kodiak
Island, Alaska, on a raccoon rabies project. In 1983, Mr. Simms came
back to Mariposa County to become the Assistant District Supervisor for
the Wildlife Services Central District.
Mr. Simms has been a dedicated employee of the Wildlife Services
program and of Mariposa County. His trapping skills are legendary and
he has developed a number of control devices and techniques that have
been used in the County and throughout other western states. Mr. Simms
has also made presentations on his techniques to Wildlife Services
employees in other western states. Mr. Simms has dealt with a wide
variety of animals in his time with Wildlife Services, including
rattlesnakes, feral pigs, bears, mountain lions and even a Bengal
tiger.
In addition to his service to the county, Mr. Simms is a dedicated
family man. Don and his wife Judy look forward to having more time to
enjoy with their children and grandchildren.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Don Simms for his dedicated
service to the people of Mariposa County. I invite my colleagues to
join me in wishing Mr. Simms many years of continued success.
____________________
ISLAND ELDERLY HOUSING ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD
______
HON. BILL DELAHUNT
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Island
Elderly Housing, an organization that has done an outstanding job of
serving the people of Martha's Vineyard.
Island Elderly Housing (IEH) was formed in 1976 by local residents of
the Island who were active in healthcare, housing, serving elders and
the ministry to provide decent, safe and affordable housing for low and
moderate income elderly and handicapped persons. Under the able
leadership of Carol Lashnits, the agency has created twelve
developments totaling 165 units, using both donated land and buildings
and financing from the USDA and HUD.
IEH has grown to become a leader in the advocacy and provision of
residential and related services for Island elderly and handicapped
residents. Since 1981 when IEH received its first construction loan of
$1.9 million from the Farmers Home Administration's Section 515
program, the agency has received more than $26 million in federal and
state grants and loans, and private grants and donations.
As the nonprofit developer and manager for all of the units, IEH is
responsible for the fiscal management for all of the development funds
as well as the ongoing operating budgets.
Careful management of its funds and its fiscal responsibility has
resulted in ongoing receipt of grants and contributions to IEH and its
programs from foundations, local religious organizations, and area
citizens.
In 2007, Carol Lashnits left her position as Executive Director for
IEH and was replaced by Ann Wallace. Under Wallace, with the help of
the larger community and a staff of fifteen, supportive services to
aging residents have
[[Page 22473]]
improved and increased and now include transportation, health,
education, advocacy, community building, recreation, exercise, yoga, a
meals program, spiritual opportunities, gardening and intergenerational
activities.
At the present time the IEH's Board and Executive Director are
analyzing the present and future needs of elders on the Island as it
plans for its own future activities. It is my hope that its next 30
years will be as productive as its first 30 years have been.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on December 14-15, 2010, I was
unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for Rollcall No.
628-638. Had I been present I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 628--``yes''--Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters
National Historic Site Designation Act.
Rollcall No. 629--``yes''--Census Oversight Efficiency and Management
Reform Act of 2010.
Rollcall No. 630--``yes''--To direct the Administrator of General
Services to convey a parcel of real property in Houston, Texas, to the
Military Museum of Texas, and for other purposes.
Rollcall No. 631--``yes''--Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office.
Rollcall No. 632--``yes''--Expressing support for designation of
January 23rd as ``Ed Roberts Day''.
Rollcall No. 633--``yes''--Recognizing the 45th anniversary of the
White House Fellows Program.
Rollcall No. 634--``yes''--Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office.
Rollcall No. 635--``yes''--Providing for consideration of the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2965.
Rollcall No. 636--``yes''--Congratulating Auburn University
quarterback and College Park, Georgia, native Cameron Newton on winning
the 2010 Heisman Trophy for being the most outstanding college football
player in the United States.
Rollcall No. 637--``yes''--Congratulating Gerda Weissmann Klein on
being selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Rollcall No. 638--``yes''--Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE QUILEUTE TRIBE TSUNAMI PROTECTION ACT
______
HON. NORMAN D. DICKS
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Quileute Tribe
Tsunami Protection Act. This legislation will provide land to the
Quileute Tribe to enable the re-location of many facilities outside the
tsunami zone. Many of you may know that the Quileute Tribe is featured
in the Twilight series of movies.
For people like the Quileutes living along the Pacific coast of the
Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, a tsunami is a very real threat
they face every day. The Quileute day care facility, the elder center,
Tribal offices and Tribal members' homes are directly in the path of
the tsunami that one day will surely come. Getting the Tribe out of
danger is of great concern to all of us, and I am very pleased to
introduce legislation to help the Tribe move their people and
infrastructure out of the danger zone.
The Olympic National Park completely surrounds the one-mile-square
Quileute Reservation, most of which is threatened either by tsunami or
the Quillayute River flood zone. The only way to get the Tribe out of
the danger zone is for the Park to transfer higher, safer lands to the
Tribe. For many years there has been a dispute between the Park and the
Tribe about the northern boundary of the Reservation, and this
legislation resolves that dispute to the benefit of the Park, the Tribe
and the general public. In addition to protecting the Tribe from
tsunami threat, this legislation will permanently preserve public
access to some of the most beautiful beaches on the Washington State
coast, and will permanently protect as wilderness thousands of acres
currently in the Olympic National Park.
I want to thank the Quileute Tribe, National Park Service Director
Jon Jarvis and Olympic National Park Superintendent Karen Gustin for
their hard work over many years to resolve this dispute. There must be
Congressional approval for this settlement, so I ask my colleagues to
consider the present danger to the Tribe and to support this bill.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DENNIS M. DIEMER
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise with my
colleagues Congressman John Garamendi, Congresswoman Barbara Lee,
Congressman Jerry McNerney, and Congressman Pete Stark to recognize
East Bay Municipal Utility District General Manager Dennis M. Diemer
and congratulate him as he approaches his well-earned retirement.
Mr. Diemer's career in public service demonstrates his lifelong
commitment to the citizens and communities of the East Bay. We are
grateful to him for his service to our constituents.
He began his career with EBMUD in 1981 as a senior environmental
engineer, and over the ensuing years he was promoted to positions of
increasing responsibility at the agency. In 1995, the board of
directors selected him to serve as acting general manager, and he was
appointed as general manager on February 13, 1996.
In California, where our water fights are legendary, Dennis'
collaborative approach helped EBMUD make strides toward a secure water
future. Working with the district's board of directors, Dennis and his
team focused on identifying and working with partners for water supply
projects. He played a significant role in ending years of water wars
between the East Bay, the Sacramento area, and the environmental
community, an effort which evolved into the Freeport Regional Water
Project.
Dennis' work has made a long-term difference in the environmental
quality of the Bay Area. He has long promoted protection of San
Francisco Bay, from his work in the 1980s managing a collaborative
effort with local communities to abate uncontrolled sewage discharges
into San Francisco to more recent efforts to forge agreements that put
EBMUD and local communities on a long term path toward controlling wet
weather discharges to the Bay. In addition, under his watch, the
district's new long range plan included a pioneering analysis of the
potential impacts of climate change on future water supply. These
actions will result in better protection of public health and the
environment.
Dennis has demonstrated exceptional leadership for EBMUD, making the
organizational and process improvements necessary to anticipate and
adapt to changes in regulations, technology, the environment, and the
world around us.
Madam Speaker, I invite our colleagues to join us in honoring General
Manager Dennis Diemer for his dedicated service to the people of
California and the Bay Area. We are pleased to join with his family,
colleagues, and friends in congratulating Dennis on a long and highly
successful career and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SUPERVISORS GAIL STEELE AND ALICE LAI-BITKER
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gail Steele
and Alice Lai-Bitker, who have chosen to retire from their exemplary
service on the Alameda Board of Supervisors at the end of this year.
Supervisors Steele and Lai-Bitker have served their districts with
honor and distinction.
Supervisor Steele has held many positions of leadership in
organizations in Alameda County including Alameda County Mental Health
Advisory Board; Chair, Alameda Alliance for Health; Chair, Alameda
County Children's Memorial Grove and Flag Committee; President of
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum/Area Joint Power Authority; Chair,
Local Agency Formation Commission; Executive Committee of the
Association of Bay Area Governments; and the Liaison Committee of the
East Bay Regional Parks.
She served on the Hayward City Council from 1974 to 1982, and has
represented the Second Supervisory District since June 1992. She served
as President of the Board of Supervisors from January 1995 to January
1997, and again from January 2003 to January 2005.
Alice Lai-Bitker was unanimously appointed to the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors
[[Page 22474]]
in December 2000. She was re-elected twice by voters in District Three,
where she is serving until her tenure ends at the end of December 2010.
In January 2009, she was selected by her colleagues to serve as
President of the Board for 2009 and 2010.
During her tenure as Supervisor, Ms. Lai-Bitker has been a strong
advocate for increasing health care for children. She spearheaded the
No Wrong Door policy in Social Services to ensure quick and efficient
service. Her work on domestic violence includes A Day of Remembrance,
honoring victims of domestic violence and assisting in obtaining
federal funds for a Family Justice Center in Alameda County.
Ms. Lai-Bitker chairs the Board's Health Committee and serves on the
Social Service Committee. She is a member of the Alameda County
Transportation Authority and she represents the Board of Supervisors on
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. She is a member of the
Board of the George Mark Children's House, the UC Berkeley School of
Social Welfare Community and California State University East Bay
Institute for Mental Health and Wellness Education.
Supervisors Steele and Lai-Bitker have many notable accomplishments,
and have won many awards for their contributions. I join the community
in thanking each of these outstanding women for the significant impact
they've had in our community.
____________________
HONORING BRIAN MULLER
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Brian Muller upon his retirement as the Mariposa County
Sheriff/Coroner/Public Administrator.
Mr. Muller has served Mariposa since February of 1981, when he
started in the Sheriff's Office as a Jail Officer/Dispatcher. In
November of 1985, he became a Deputy Sheriff, after which he received a
series of promotions: to Sergeant in 1998, to Lieutenant in 1999 and
finally to Undersheriff in 2003. Finally, Mr. Muller was appointed as
the Sheriff/Coroner/Public Administrator in January 2008 and he has
ably served the County in that capacity since.
While working for the Sheriff's Office, Mr. Muller was responsible
for a wide range of duties in the County, including 9-1-1 dispatch,
patrol, an adult detention facility, investigations, court security,
boat patrol, animal control, coroner, public administrator duties, and
Sheriff's Community Organized Policing Effort (SCOPE). Mr. Muller also
successfully applied for a number of grants from the State of
California that benefited Mariposa County. For his service to the
County, Mr. Muller received a number of awards, including the Mariposa
Gazette Best Peace Officer award and Law Enforcement Officer of the
Year from Mountain Crisis Services.
In addition to his many duties as Sheriff, Mr. Muller has contributed
to the County in other ways. Brad and his wife Sarah are actively
involved in their church and regularly assist at the Senior Center.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Brad Muller for his dedicated
service to the people of Mariposa County. I invite my colleagues to
join me in wishing Mr. Muller many years of continued success.
____________________
HONORING CLARKE WARDLAW McCANTS, JR.
______
HON. KEVIN BRADY
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late
Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr., of Columbia, South Carolina, who passed
away on December 3 of this year. Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr., was a
brilliant legal mind. Growing up in Columbia in the 1930s, he
distinguished himself among his peers as a fine attorney and was
recognized by The Best Lawyers in America in its Trusts and Estates
Section. An active member of the American Bar Association, he even
served as the Editor of the Association's Journal of Real Property and
Probate Trust Law.
Not just an outstanding lawyer, Clarke McCants was a kind man who
raised a fine family that he took great pride in. He is survived by his
wife of 54 years, Anne Lucius McCants and many loving children and
grandchildren. It is important that the people of our nation step
forward to serve their communities and give back to their country. This
was not lost on Clarke McCants who gave generously of his time to his
community.
Educated at the University of South Carolina as both an undergraduate
and a law school student, he was a very active participant in the
student government and many various extra curricular programs on campus
such as Omicron Delta Kappa, President of Pi Kappa Alpha, and the
debate team.
Between his undergraduate and law school education, Mr. McCants
served us all in the United States Army Air Corps as a flight radio
operator. His service in World War II earned him one Bronze Star. We
are thankful for his service and we can all learn from the life
experiences of Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr.
In closing, I just wanted to take a moment to share my condolences to
the family of Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr. The entire staff and I are
sorry for your loss and the pain this has caused you and your family.
____________________
CONGRATULATING GREENWOOD, SOUTH CAROLINA'S SELF REGIONAL HEALTHCARE
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate Greenwood, South Carolina's Self Regional Healthcare on
receiving the South Carolina Governor's Quality Award. Presented by the
South Carolina Quality Forum; an affiliate of the South Carolina
Chamber of Commerce, the Governor's Quality Award recognizes
organizations across the state that have mirrored the superior
standards of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
As my colleagues know, the Baldrige Program's mission is to improve
the competitiveness and performance of U.S. organizations. It is the
only formal recognition of performance excellence given by the
President of the United States to companies and organizations in the
business, healthcare, education, and nonprofit sectors.
Five years in the making, Self Regional was recognized for improving
the quality of patient care while simultaneously improving the outlook
of its long-term financial performance. I give credit to the team of
2,300 physicians, administrators and volunteers who worked tirelessly
to put their patients first. To each and every one of them, I say, a
job well done.
I am pleased to see everyone involved at Self Regional being
recognized for their hard work and dedication by the Governor's Quality
Award. While congratulations are certainly in order, I concur with Mr.
Jim Pfeffier, President and CEO of Self Regional, who said, ``It is
important to note the real winners in this are our patients, for
quality and safety are especially important when it comes to addressing
the health needs of others.''
Since making the commitment to improve its level of patient care,
Self Regional has received the Quality Forum's Silver Award twice and
the Explorer's Award once. With such a stellar track record, Self
Regional is making a name for itself in not only South Carolina, but
also, across the nation. I am pleased to add my name to the many that
offer Self Regional their heartfelt congratulations on this award.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JULIE LANCELLE
_____
HON. JACKIE SPEIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Julie Lancelle for her
outstanding community service in Pacifica, California, since 1986.
Julie moved to Pacifica in 1986 with her husband and daughter and was
quickly drawn into the public activism intrinsic to this coastal town.
One of her first causes was the opposition to extending the Highway 1
freeway south of Rockaway Beach. The following year she was appointed
to the Pacifica Open Space Task Force.
In 1992, Julie was first elected to the Pacifica City Council. After
serving a two-year term, she left to spend more time with her children.
In 1997, she recommitted herself to community service and became a
member of the Pacifica Land Trust Board where she used her years of
experience to preserve open space.
She was again elected to the city council in 2002 and during her
eight years of service was instrumental in the completion of the
Pacifica Strategic Plan, the Palmetto Streetscape Plan and the
expansion of the Community Emergency Response Team Program. She
advocated for the preservation of
[[Page 22475]]
the habitat at Sharp Park, balancing environmental concerns with the
recreational pursuits of golf and archery. Julie also represented her
community on the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the City/
County Association of Governments.
Throughout her life, Julie has been passionate about the outdoors and
the preservation of open space. One of the highlights in her career was
the purchase of Mori Point and its inclusion into the Golden Gate
National Recreational Area. She launched a campaign for that purchase
and organized the community to raise money to partner with the Trust
for Public Land, the Park Service and the Coastal Conservancy. Thanks
to Julie, Mori Point is now a spectacular hiking area open to everyone.
Madam Speaker, it is right to honor my friend and colleague Julie
Lancelle for her outstanding advocacy and dedication to her community,
particularly on December 15, 2010, the day she retires from the
Pacifica City Council.
____________________
HONORING CHRIS EBIE
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Chris Ebie upon his retirement as the Mariposa County
Auditor.
Mr. Ebie began his career with Mariposa County in September of 1987
as Account Clerk III in the Auditor's Office. In November of 1988, he
was promoted to Assistant Auditor. In April 2005, Mr. Ebie briefly left
Mariposa County but returned in January 2006 as the Board-appointed
County Auditor. In June 2007, Mr. Ebie was officially elected to the
position of County Auditor.
In his time with the County, Mr. Ebie worked on a number of projects,
including coordinating efforts in assuring the County's compliance with
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 45, maintaining the
County's software and budget structure and implementing the Alternative
Measurement Method (AMM) for reporting costs and liabilities associated
with health and other non-pension benefits for public employees.
In addition to his service to the County, Mr. Ebie is a dedicated
family man. Chris and his wife Grace are the proud parents of four
children and the proud grandparents of four grandchildren.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chris Ebie for his dedicated
service to the people of Mariposa County. I invite my colleagues to
join me in wishing Mr. Ebie many years of continued success.
____________________
HAITI EARTHQUAKE
______
HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Ms. CLARKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the
plight of Haiti. As we all know, Haiti suffered a devastating
earthquake in January 2010. The magnitude 7 quake claimed the lives of
hundreds of thousands of Haitians, displaced over a million and left
the capital of Port-au-Prince and outlying country areas in ruins.
Haiti's road to recovery has been long and arduous. Despite
overwhelming support from the international community, the success of
redevelopment and rebuilding efforts has been extremely limited. Even
today, thousands remain in international displacement camps, many
overrun with disease and violence. To date, more than a thousand have
died due to the cholera outbreak. Even more continue to suffer in
unspeakable poverty and squalor.
One of the strongest obstacles to meaningful recovery in Haiti has
been a political environment long plagued with corruption and
dishonesty. Despite the presence of over 100 observers, Haiti's
presidential election two Sundays ago was overrun with allegations of
fraud and overtly questionable practices. It is my hope that the
election results are indeed as accurate as possible and that the former
First Lady Mirlande Manigat and ruling party candidate Jude Celestin
are the true, democratically elected candidates to participate in the
Presidential run-off.
Although Haiti experienced numerous political and economic problems
prior to the earthquake, the current level of challenges the Haitian
people are facing is no longer tolerable. The United States and the
international community cannot continue to accept the pace at which
Haiti's recovery is taking place, while human lives are at stake. We
can all do better, and to choose complacency over deliberate action
would be a grave insult to humanity.
As we approach a new year and a new Congress, I urge my colleagues to
never forget Haiti and the challenges its people continue to face. As
the Representative of a large Caribbean-American constituency and as a
daughter of Caribbean, Haiti has always been close to my heart.
However, my commitment to helping Haiti does not solely come from my
constituency or my familial background. It comes from my identity as a
public servant and a citizen of the world. In all of my work, I will
continue to give the people of Haiti a voice. I will not give up until
my colleagues recognize Haiti and Haiti resurges as the pearl of the
Caribbean once again.
Let us never forget that as we unite with the people of Haiti,
Haitian-Americans and the Haitian Diaspora to assist with the
development of this great nation, we are forever guided by the words
etched indelibly on the Haitian flag, `L'Union fait la force' (Loon yon
feh la force) . . . through unity, there is strength!
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
______
HON. DEVIN NUNES
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize California State
University, Fresno as it celebrates its one hundred-year anniversary.
Beginning in 1911 as a small teachers college, Fresno State has built
a reputation for its academic standards as well as its athletic
achievements. Located in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, Fresno
State has played an important role in the history of the valley,
including making it the most productive agricultural region in the
world.
Fresno State is one of the few universities in the country to have an
on-campus diversified farm of over 1,000 acres. The campus was also the
first in the country fully licensed to produce, bottle, and sell wine.
Home to the largest library in the California State University
System, Fresno State has educated innovative professionals in
everything from winemaking to nursing to liberal arts. The extensive
range of degrees offered by the college mirrors the diversity of the
valley.
In addition to outstanding academic standards, Fresno State has
gained a reputation for its championship-winning athletic program. This
includes the Bulldogs baseball team winning the 2008 College World
Series.
From its beginnings as the Fresno Normal School, Fresno State has
become one of the leading academic institutions in the San Joaquin
Valley. I am proud to have the Fresno State campus in my district and
congratulate past and present students, teachers, and administrators
for 100 years of success.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. DAN BURTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, due to severe weather which
delayed my return to Washington, D.C., I was unable to be on the House
Floor for rollcall votes 628, 629 and 630. Had I been present I would
have voted: yea on rollcall vote 628; nay on rollcall vote 629; and yea
on rollcall vote 630.
____________________
GERRY HOUSE
______
HON. JIM COOPER
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Mr. Gerry House on
the occasion of his retirement from WSIX radio and the end of his
famous radio show, Gerry House and the House Foundation. Mr. House is
an award-winning American radio personality, talented songwriter,
stand-up comic and an outstanding Tennessean.
The king of morning radio in Nashville, Gerry has kept listeners
company in their cars, offices and homes for three decades. He will be
the first-ever country music DJ to join other American radio and
television luminaries in the National Association of Broadcasters Hall
of Fame.
Gerry is truly engaged in all levels of the music industry. He has
written songs for legends like George Strait, Reba McEntire,
[[Page 22476]]
LeAnn Rimes, Brad Paisley, Randy Travis, and the Oak Ridge Boys. A
savvy businessman, Mr. House also operates a music publishing company,
House Notes, which owns the songs he has written.
The sustained excellence of Gerry House and the House Foundation has
been recognized by virtually every respected country music and radio
association in the United States. It has received three awards from the
Country Music Association, seven from the Academy of Country Music,
eight Billboard Awards, and nine R&R awards. Gerry is also the
recipient of the NAB Marconi Radio Award for Large Market Air
Personality of the Year.
Gerry cited his desire to devote more of his time to other projects
as his reason for retiring. His loyal fans are eagerly waiting to see
what these projects will turn out to be because we all want more of
Gerry.
And so, Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to ask my colleagues to
join me in saluting Gerry's leadership and accomplishments. The people
of Nashville and Middle Tennessee are grateful for Gerry waking us up
in the morning in such an enjoyable way. It's hard to make a long
commute fun, but Gerry House did it for 30 years.
____________________
STANDING WITH OUR ALLY SOUTH KOREA
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I was deeply saddened and outraged by North
Korea's recent attack on Yeonpyeong island which killed four South
Koreans and wounded 20. Officials estimated that the North had fired
roughly 200 artillery shells onto Yeonpyeong. The November 23 attack
was the first on civilian-populated areas since the Korean War.
This is just the latest provocation on the part of Pyongyang--a
regime infamous for its deplorable human rights record and Soviet style
gulags.
Recently North Korea showed Dr. Siegfried Hecker, the former head of
the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory, a new modern uranium
enrichment facility with 2,000 centrifuges. The North Koreans claimed
it is producing low enriched uranium destined for fuel for a new light-
water nuclear reactor. According to the Congressional Research Service,
``Although Dr. Hecker has said that the centrifuge plant and the new
reactor appear to be designed primarily for civilian nuclear power, the
uranium facilities could also be used to produce fissile material
suitable for nuclear weapons.''
These are deeply troubling developments. During this time of
heightened tensions in the Korean Peninsula we must actively work with
our long-term ally South Korea to ensure a lasting peace in the region
and continue to expose the true nature of the North Korea regime which
the international community can no longer deny.
____________________
BROTHER . . . BROTHER . . . COMBAT MEDIC SPC JEROD HEALTH OSBORNE,
UNITED STATES ARMY
______
HON. RALPH M. HALL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great
American family, and a fallen hero and his brother. On July 5, 2010,
Combat Medic SPC Jerod Heath Osborne of Royce, Texas of the 4/73 82nd
Airborne, died during an IED explosion in Afghanistan. In his short
life he was a combat medic, an Angel on the Battlefield, the ones who
rush in while all around the face of hell is going on. The lives that
he has saved in his brief but great life will be measured in the
future, with children and heroes that he has saved. His brother, a SSG
in the 22nd Infantry, on September 21 of that same year almost died in
a mortar attack and is currently fighting to save his leg. This family,
throughout the generations, has served our nation in the Armed Forces.
The very bed of our Nation's freedom is built upon selfless families,
our prayers and thoughts go out to them. SSG Grillett has said that his
brother Jerod always wanted to be just like him, but now he wants to be
like his brother.
Brother . . . Brother . . .
Brother . . . Brother . . .
My . . .
My Brother's Gift . . .
So very precious, as was this . . .
My Brother's Faith, shall forever so wave . . .
My Brothers life, one of such so sure selfless sacrifice . .
.
All in his amazing grace . . .
My Brothers life, so very short . . . yet shines so bright!
Moments, are all we have!
To grab hearts, To Make A Difference . . . to Heaven rise!
As an Angel on The Battlefield . . .
As into the face of death Jerod, you so ran . . . and not to
yield. . . .
To but so save sacred life, as was your mission . . . as was
his most divine light!
From dusk to dawn, as a battlefield combat medic your courage
worn!
As all around you Jerod, the face of death so swarmed!
And what child may be born?
All from your love Jerod, upon battlefields of honor adorned!
That might so save the world, who now lives on . . .
And all those lives you saved, just moments from the grave .
. .
And what children, all on this morning will awake?
With but the greatest gift of all, in their hearts to take!
With a Mother or Father, a Sister or Brother whose fine lives
you saved . . .
Brother . . . Brother, oh how it's for you I cry!
A promise I've made, as I wipe these tears from my eyes!
That I will live for you, each and every new day, every
sunrise!
To the fullest! All in your fine name!
And if ever I have a new son, your name will be his . . .
this one!
Brother . . . Brother . . . I am so very proud of you!
All in what you have done . . . oh yes it's true!
Only the good die young, as now you shine all up in Heaven's
sun!
As an Angel In The Army of our Lord, with your new battle
begun!
To watch over us, as Thy Will Be Done!
Brother . . . Brother . . .
All across Texas this night . . .
As we lay our heads down to rest, as comes a gentle rain . .
.
As upon us, are but our Lord's tears to wash over us . . .
And so bless us, to so ease our pain!
As he cries for your most sacred sacrifice, this rain . . .
Brother . . . Brother . . . I can not wait until up in Heaven
we meet again. . . .
And we won't have to cry anymore, all in this pain . . .
Brother, Brother, once you so wanted to be just like me . . .
Now, I'm the one who so wants . . . to be like you!
Brother . . . Brother . . . Amen. . . .
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, December 9, 2010, Tuesday,
December 14, 2010, and Wednesday, December 15, 2010, I was not present
for twelve recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the
following way: Roll No. 626--``yea''; Roll No. 627--``yea''; Roll No.
628--``yea''; Roll No. 629--``nay''; Roll No. 630--``yea''; Roll No.
631--``yea''; Roll No. 632--``yea''; Roll No. 633--``yea''; Roll No.
634--``yea''; Roll No. 635--``nay''; Roll No. 636--``yea''; Roll No.
637--``yea.''
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COLLEYVILLE GARDEN CLUB
______
HON. KENNY MARCHANT
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th
anniversary of the Colleyville Garden Club. Over the last 50 years, the
Colleyville Garden Club has been committed to the improvement of
Colleyville's parks and gardens.
On January 11, 1961, Florence Eudaly, wife of Colleyville's first
mayor, along with several other women, organized the Colleyville Garden
Club. The club began by meeting in member's homes with established
yearly dues of $1.00. Since then, the Colleyville Garden Club has grown
in membership and continues to support projects in the community with
the underlying goals of promoting interest in all phases of gardening,
horticultural education, civic beautification, and conservation of
natural resources.
The Colleyville Garden Club has spent countless hours involved in
projects in the Colleyville community such as Keep Colleyville
Beautiful, Arbor Day, Promenade Garden Tour, and many others. The
Colleyville Garden Club has designed and installed gardens
[[Page 22477]]
throughout the local community including the Colleyville Center, Leone
Hodges Butterfly Garden at Kidsville, Colleyville City Hall,
Colleyville Parks and Recreation Office, Sparger Park, and Webb House.
From 2008 to 2010, the Club generously donated two bronze sculptures
and three Lyman Whitaker wind sculptures to McPherson Park.
On behalf of the 24th Congressional District of Texas, it is my
distinct pleasure to recognize the Colleyville Garden Club for its 50
years of service in the Colleyville community.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Mr.
Radanovich and Mr. Cardoza to extend our sincerest congratulations to
California State University, Fresno as they celebrate their centennial
anniversary.
As Fresno State celebrates its 100th anniversary, the university is
``Powering the New California'' in our rapidly changing region as we
move forward in the 21st Century. California State University, Fresno,
also known as Fresno State, has evolved from its founding as a teachers
college to become a renowned center for higher learning in the Central
Valley with eight schools and colleges serving over twenty thousand
students.
Fresno State was originally founded as Fresno State Normal School on
September 11, 1911 under the guidance of its first president Mr.
Charles L. McLane. In 1921, Fresno State Normal School changed its name
to Fresno State Teachers College and began to share a campus with
another fine local institution, Fresno City College, to provide a
quality education to local students for whom the distance of
universities such as the University of California and Stanford
University was too great a hardship. Fresno State Normal School would
change its name again to Fresno State College in 1934, and in 1949 the
first advanced degrees in English and Education were granted. Forty-
five years after Fresno State first opened its doors, it relocated to
its present location on Shaw and Cedar Avenues in 1956, where it
currently sits on over three hundred acres of land. In 1961, Fresno
State College became the charter institution of the California State
University System and would officially become known as California State
University, Fresno in 1972.
Today, Fresno State enrolls more than 21,500 undergraduate students
and 4,400 graduate students and offers Bachelor's, Master's, and
Doctoral degrees. In 2011, Fresno State will graduate its 100th class
with an anticipated 5,500 students graduating from the institution.
Notable among the academic programs at Fresno State, the Sid Craig
School of Business has been nationally recognized by the Princeton
Review as a ``Top Business School,'' the Jordan College of Agricultural
Science and Technology oversees the only commercial winery in the
country run by a university, and the Lyles College of Engineering has
the only Geomatics undergraduate program in the Nation. Fresno State is
also home to the Henry Madden Library, which with over one million
books is the largest academic library between Sacramento and Los
Angeles, and serves as a learning resource for the entire region. It is
programs and institutions such as these that truly embody the
excellence of Fresno State.
Fresno State has not only established itself as a leader in
academics, but also in athletics; the school has gained national
recognition through their various sports programs such as football,
baseball and soccer. For instance, in 1998, Fresno State's women's
softball team won the NCAA Women's College World Series by defeating
the defending two-time former champions, the University of Arizona.
Additionally, a decade later, the Fresno State men's baseball team
climbed their way through the College World Series as the lowest ranked
seed in post-season play to capture the 2008 NCAA title in a shocking
defeat of the University of Georgia. Fresno State's distinguished
alumni include Mayor of Fresno, California Ashley Swearingin, three-
time Olympic Gold Medalist Laura Berg, former NASA Astronaut and
Mission Commander of the Space Shuttle Columbia Colonel Rick Husband,
U.S. Ambassador to Colombia and Honduras Phillip V. Sanchez, former
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O'Neill, former Nevada Governor
Kenny Guinn, and 2001 Super Bowl winning quarterback Trent Dilfer.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Cardoza and myself, in recognizing California State University, Fresno
as they celebrate their centennial anniversary and continue their
outstanding educational leadership for students throughout the Central
Valley and the State of California.
____________________
HONORING GAIL NEAL
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and
congratulate Gail Neal upon her retirement as the Mariposa County Chief
Probation Officer.
Ms. Neal began her career with Mariposa County as clerk II for the
District Attorney's office in April 1978. In September 1981, she
transferred to the Sheriff's Office, where she was a dispatcher and
then a jail officer. In November 1987, Ms. Neal transferred back to the
District Attorney's office, where she served as a Clerk III for a short
time before being promoted to legal secretary. Ms. Neal began in
Probation as a probation aide in May 1989. From there, she received a
number of promotions: to Acting Deputy Probation Officer in September
of 1990, Deputy Probation Officer in January of 1991, Deputy Probation
Officer II in January of 1993, Deputy Probation Officer III in May of
1995, Deputy Chief Probation Officer in January of 2001, Interim Chief
Probation Officer in March of 2001 and Chief Probation Officer two
weeks later in March of 2001.
Ms. Neal has displayed outstanding leadership, organization and
commitment in her time with Mariposa County Probation. Her duties
included planning, organizing, directing, supervising and administering
actives and operations of the County Probation Department and Juvenile
Hall. She also developed and oversaw the Revenue & Recovery Division.
Besides her commitments to Mariposa County Probation, Ms. Neal served
as a member of a number of groups, including of the Chief Probation
Officers of California, California Probation, Parole and Corrections
Association, American Probation and Parole Association, Mariposa County
Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, Mariposa County Alcohol & Drug
Advisory Board, and was Chair on Mariposa County Juvenile Justice
Coordinating Council. In her free time, Ms. Neal also ran a side
business as a candle maker.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Gail Neal for her dedicated
service to the people of Mariposa County. I invite my colleagues to
join me in wishing Ms. Neal many years of continued success.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE SERVICES OF CAMP PATRIOT
_____
HON. ADAM SMITH
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Camp Patriot and their tremendous service to veterans in the Greater
Seattle Area and throughout the country.
Camp Patriot was founded in 2006 to help provide the 2.3 million
disabled U.S. veterans with the opportunity to take outdoor trips. The
nonprofit group organizes fishing, hunting, skiing, hiking, and
motorcycling trips for our brave veterans. Camp Patriot enables
disabled veterans the chance to develop relationships with other fellow
veterans through outdoor adventures and team building exercises. The
program works with outdoor organizations and financial sponsors that
provide equipment, supplies, and clothing, and allow veterans to attend
the camp free of cost.
Camp Patriot is a relatively new organization yet has done much in
their outreach to veterans and their families. One major goal they are
currently working toward is the construction of a lodge on Lake
Koocanusa in Montana, which would accommodate 20 disabled veterans a
week at no charge to the veterans.
Among Camp Patriot's major activities is the annual hike to the
summit of Mount Rainier. The inaugural climb took place in July 2007.
Most recently, the Camp Patriot team reached the 14,411-foot summit on
July 14, 2010. Each year, before the climb, participants travel to
Seattle to dine at Qwest Field and tour the stadium with the Seattle
Seahawks. Participants also attend a week-long training sponsored by
Iron90 Workplace Wellness. Iron90 prepares the veterans for the
grueling hike up the summit. Founder Micah Clark, a fellow veteran,
often accompanies the hikers on the climb and sees first-hand the
effect his organization can have on disabled veterans.
[[Page 22478]]
The Greater Seattle community has been very supportive of Camp
Patriot's mission in the area. Joint Base Lewis-McChord volunteers
moved to help put up tents and prepare food for the participants. They
also participate in fishing and hunting trips, assisting Camp Patriot
veterans on the way. Additionally, Washington State organizations have
helped provide services and materials to help the nonprofit and its
participating veterans.
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of
Representatives please join me in honoring Camp Patriot for their
commitment to provide for disabled veterans who have given so much for
our safety.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE PATCHOGUE-MEDFORD LIBRARY
______
HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the Patchogue-
Medford Library for earning the prestigious National Medal for Museum
and Library Service. This award recognizes the Patchogue-Medford
Library for its commitment to making a difference in the lives of
individuals, families, and its community and serves as our Nation's
highest honor for libraries and museums.
The Patchogue-Medford Library enjoys a long and colorful history,
having served the people of Suffolk County for nearly 130 years.
Originally housed in the back room of Floyd Overton's shoe store on
East Main Street, the library was formed under the direction of the
Patchogue Library Association in June, 1883. The library opened its
doors just two months later in August, 1883, housing 635 volumes that
included the likes of Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Jules Verne, and
Alexis De Tocqueville.
Following brief stints in a music store and the Lyceum Community
Center, the library was adopted in 1899 by Sorosis, an all-purpose
women's organization new to the Patchogue neighborhood, with the
intention of transforming the private library into a public facility.
Sorosis greatly enhanced the library, raising enough funds and
community support for the construction of a permanent home in 1908.
Aided by the financial backing of philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, the
library earned acclaim across New York State. Today, the Patchogue-
Medford Library serves as the sole New York State-designated Central
Library for Suffolk County, providing support and innovative services
to the people of the First Congressional District of New York.
Throughout all of the changes, growth, and iterations of the
Patchogue-Medford Library, the goal of universal literacy has remained
at the forefront of the library's agenda. Serving a diverse community,
of which nearly one-quarter of the population is Hispanic, the library
has taken a non-traditional approach toward literacy in the community.
The library is committed to bringing quality programming to both
English-speaking and Spanish-speaking communities, often combining the
two groups for mutually beneficial learning experiences. Children are
often exposed to bilingual story times, teens engage with each other in
the Language Cafe, and Spanish language computer instructions are
offered to more than 2,100 adult students. The Patchogue-Medford
Library demonstrates that literacy is important in all its forms, from
reading books to reading one another.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Patchogue-Medford
Library for receiving the National Medal for Museum and Library
Service, and I commend the library for its continued commitment to
providing vital services to the people of the First Congressional
District of New York.
____________________
IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR ROBERT SUMMERS' RETIREMENT
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cornell Law School
Professor Robert S. Summers, whose tireless dedication to his students
and intense passion for the law are worthy of recognition.
Professor Summers grew up on his family's farm in rural Oregon.
There, his parents imbued in him a strong work ethic, which he credits
for his extensive career of publication and scholarship. He went from
driving tractors and school buses to studies at the University of
Oregon, and Harvard Law. He has spent the last 50 years as a law
professor, 42 of them at Cornell Law School. December 1, 2010 was his
final class.
Professor Summers has been an unwavering advocate for his students.
He ardently supported increased minority enrollment within law schools,
and saw this goal through to fruition, traveling the country holding
recruiting and preparatory sessions.
Professor Summers demanded analytical excellence in the classroom. He
taught using the traditional Socratic Method, forcing students to learn
through argument and questioning, instead of simply providing them with
the answers. I was a student in Professor Summers's Contract Law class
for first year students, and the class was a formative experience for
me. Being called upon to answer questions from Professor Summers was
rewarding and challenging and it helped make me the person I am today.
In addition to his laudable career in education, Professor Summers
has also made significant contributions to the field of law. He co-
authored the Universal Commercial Code, outlining procedures for
numerous commercial transactions, and was also called upon by the
governments of Russia, Egypt, and Rwanda to help draft their civil
codes. He is simply the type of lawyer that many law students aspire to
be when they first enter school, but that very few become.
Madam Speaker, Professor Summers' commitment to the legal education
of the nation's law students and service to the field of law merit
recognition. I am sure Professor Summers will embody the same honor and
morality in his retirement as he did throughout his distinguished
career.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DR. RICHARD BREITMEYER IN RECOGNITION OF HIS EXEMPLARY
PUBLIC SERVICE
______
HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
recognize and honor Dr. Richard Breitmeyer, who has provided exemplary
public service for over 25 years.
Dr. Richard Breitmeyer has served as the California State
Veterinarian at the California Department of Food and Agriculture since
1993--rising to this position through a series of senior appointments
at CDFA since 1988. He has also served at the United States Department
of Agriculture in Ames, Iowa and Plum Island, New York. Before joining
the CDFA in 1984, Breitmeyer was in private veterinary practice.
Throughout his professional career, Dr. Breitmeyer has been a member
of both the California and American Veterinary Medical Associations. He
also served as president of the U.S. Animal Health Association since
2009 and was co-chair of the USDA Secretary's Advisory Committee for
Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases.
In 2001, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman asked California to loan Dr.
Breitmeyer to the USDA to provide leadership in addressing the very
real possibility that Foot and Mouth Disease might migrate from the
United Kingdom to the United States. It is a testament to Breitmeyer's
leadership that this virulent and devastating livestock disease did not
enter the United States. Due to this work, the USDA presented Dr.
Breitmeyer with the Honor Award in 2002.
Dr. Breitmeyer also led the effort in California to develop animal
health emergency response planning with the Governor's Office of
Emergency Services--an effort put to the test during the successful
eradication of exotic Newcastle disease from Southern California in
2003.
Dr. Richard Breitmeyer is loved and respected by his wife and family,
by the team that worked for him at CDFA, and by all those who have
interacted with him during his professional life. I am grateful that
since his retirement on September 30, 2010, Dr. Breitmeyer has joined
the staff at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory at
the University of California, Davis, to continue his outreach
activities for livestock and poultry health.
I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Dr. Richard Breitmeyer
upon his retirement, and applaud him for his dedication to California.
[[Page 22479]]
____________________
HONORING REVEREND BRUCE HENNING DAVIDSON
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Reverend Bruce
Henning Davidson, Director of the Lutheran Office of Governmental
Ministry of New Jersey, who is retiring January 1, 2011. The Office of
Governmental Ministry is an advocacy ministry of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of America and communicates the official policies and
actions of the church to leaders in state government, particularly on
issues of hunger and poverty, and more recently, immigration reform,
detention practices, refugee issues and marriage equality.
Reverend Davidson is recognized statewide as an inspiring pastor, an
energetic community activist, and as an advocate for justice for all
people. Since becoming Director of the Lutheran Office of Governmental
Ministry of New Jersey, Reverend Davidson has been a tireless laborer
in the vineyard of social service. He founded the New Jersey Advocacy
Network to End Homelessness and the Anti-Poverty Network of New Jersey
and a number of other community service organizations.
Heeding the biblical command to feed, clothe and shelter the poor and
needy, Bruce Davidson made it his business to search out ways for
people in need to have an opportunity for a better life. He recognized
that the homeless are often people with bad luck--lack of a job, a sick
child and no health insurance, a lack of education, or a traumatizing
war experience can cause a person to become homeless and this can
happen to any of us. He believes that no one should be homeless in
America and inspires us to join in the fight against the poverty and
indifference that allows this to happen.
Bruce Davidson was born on March 10, 1948 to David E. and Anne H.
Davidson. He is a graduate of the Philadelphia school system and Temple
University and was ordained following his graduation from the Lutheran
Theological Seminary in 1974. He has spent his entire career in New
Jersey, ministering to congregations from Cape May in Southern New
Jersey to Bergen County in the north.
Wherever he has lived and preached, Bruce Davidson has made an
impact, as evidenced by the many organizations that have honored him
for his leadership in the community. He received the Equal Justice
Award from Legal Services of New Jersey and was recognized by New
Jersey Citizen Action and the Bergen County Chapter of NAACP. He was
chosen a Distinguished Alumnus by the Community College of
Philadelphia.
I have known Bruce Davidson for many years and my admiration for his
life's work has no bounds. He is an unselfish and humble man who
inspires the best in all of us. He deserves a happy and healthy
retirement, with much time to spend with his long-time partner, Donald
Barb, and a bit of leisure. But it is hard to think that he will not
continue his advocacy for the unfortunate. Please join with me in
recognizing Pastor Bruce Davidson and thanking him for a life of
service.
____________________
10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY (DRA)
_____
HON. JO ANN EMERSON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Delta Regional
Authority, DRA, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. Ten years ago,
President Clinton signed into law legislation establishing the DRA. He
did so with the widespread bipartisan support of Members of Congress
who were eager to give this region a strong foothold up the ladder to
success.
The DRA has proven to be effective in leveling the playing field for
the Delta region. The DRA helps connect opportunity with the sheer
grit, intelligence, and willpower that already exists in the people of
the region. For ten years, DRA has made great strides in bridging the
gaps that have kept the region isolated from progress.
The DRA is a federal-state partnership that serves 252 counties and
parishes in parts of Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Missouri. These counties and parishes hold
great promise for access and trade in bordering the world's greatest
transportation arterial--the Mississippi River.
It has been a privilege for me to work alongside DRA and the people
of the Delta region over the years. The educators, healthcare
providers, farmers, local officials, small business owners and workers
in this part of the country have all made meaningful contributions to
overcome unique challenges and make the Delta region a wonderful place
to live and work.
The people of the Delta region are fortunate to have a reliable
federal partner in the DRA. In its first ten years of work, the DRA has
made significant progress tackling the region's unique challenges. For
example, the DRA operates a highly successful grant program in each of
the eight states it serves, allowing cities and counties to leverage
money from other federal agencies and private investors.
An independent report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Economic Research Service found that per capita income grew more
rapidly in counties where the DRA had the greatest investment. Anyone
who knows what it is like to live and work in an area without the most
basic infrastructure systems will understand how important the DRA work
is to bring critical infrastructure such as new water and sewer
services to more than 43,000 families.
I look forward to working with the DRA as it continues to expand its
regional initiatives in the areas of health care, transportation,
leadership training and information technology, small business
development and entrepreneurship, and alternative energy jobs. I am
proud to recognize the DRA's first ten years of achievements, and I
look forward to working with the DRA to build an even stronger region
for our future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE LIFE OF JOSEPH EUGENE QUINN
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Langevin and Mr. Neal, to pay tribute to Mr.
Joseph Eugene Quinn who passed away on December 3, 2010 at the age of
seventy. Mr. Quinn was an extraordinary man who will long be
remembered.
Joseph Eugene Quinn was born in Pawtucket, Rhode Island on March 1,
1940, the third of four sons to the late Joseph L. and Mary E. Quinn.
Joseph Eugene, known as Gene by friends and family, attended St.
Raphael Academy in Pawtucket and excelled on the football and
basketball teams. He graduated from Providence College in 1960 and
maintained a life-long commitment to the intellectual and spiritual
traditions of the Dominican Order.
After graduation, Gene enlisted in the United States Army. While
serving in the military, he travelled extensively and befriended a wide
spectrum of people who delighted in exchanging viewpoints on religion,
politics and sports.
After his discharge from the Army, Gene moved to Largo, Florida where
he became president of Bardmoor Country Club, a real estate and resort
development. Gene later moved to Washington, DC and worked on Ronald
Reagan's reelection bid in 1984. Mr. Quinn went on to hold a series of
increasingly important positions with the Federal Government, and being
a fond admirer of President Reagan, he took great pride later in his
career when telling friends that he worked in the Ronald Reagan
Building. At the time of his passing, Gene was an international trade
specialist and project officer for Global Trade Programs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Although Mr. Quinn lived in the Washington area for three decades he
considered Rhode Island his home and always enjoyed spending summers
there.
Mr. Quinn leaves behind his loving wife, Marguerite Slocum Quinn, to
whom he was married twenty-three years. They were both founding members
of the Anacostia Gracious Arts Program, an urban afterschool arts
program for underprivileged youth in Washington. Gene was also a member
of the Spouting Rock Beach Association in Newport, RI, the Clambake
Club of Newport, the Providence College Alumni Association, and the
American Ireland Fund.
In addition to his wife, Mr. Quinn is survived by his daughter, Tara,
her husband Andrew Reilly, and his grandchildren, Andrew and Fiona of
Middletown, RI. He is also survived by his brothers, Paul of McLean,
VA, Thomas of Washington, DC, Francis of New York City, and their
families.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Langevin, Mr. Neal and I in remembering the life of this remarkable
man as we offer our condolences to his family and celebrate his memory
and service to our country.
[[Page 22480]]
____________________
HONORING JAMES R. BOMBARD
______
HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize my
constituent, James R. Bombard of Port Jefferson, New York, for his hard
work and commitment to America's veterans. Jim will retire on December
23rd after twelve years of service at the New York State Division of
Veterans Affairs. Jim's many contributions and achievements over a
career dedicated to public service have undoubtedly enhanced the lives
of our Nation's veterans and expanded opportunities afforded to them.
During his service as an Army paratroop commander during the Vietnam
War, Captain Bombard was decorated with the Silver Star and Purple
Heart. Following his service, Jim continued on a path of service by
advocating for future generations of servicemen and women.
In the late 1980s, Mr. Bombard served as Special Assistant to
Congressman Robert J. Mrazek of New York. He worked on the American
Homecoming Act of 1988, which allowed Vietnamese children, born of
American fathers, to immigrate to the United States. This legislation
resulted in America welcoming nearly 100,000 Asian Americans and
relatives, enriching our vibrant Vietnamese-American community.
Continuing his dedication to veterans, Jim served as Chief of the New
York State Division of Veterans Affairs' Bureau of Veterans Education,
working to improve the ``veteran friendliness'' of New York
institutions of higher education. As Legislative Director, two-term
President, and Chief of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies, Jim has enhanced the policy and curricula that promote
quality education and training opportunities for veterans.
Jim's experience in state government, industry, and the halls of
Congress have also informed the development and implementation of the
post 9/11 GI Bill, which extended full tuition and benefits to the
newest generation of American heroes.
Madam Speaker, building a career on expanding opportunity to veterans
is a calling of the highest honor. James R. Bombard deserves our
gratitude and recognition for his outstanding service and enduring
contributions to improving the lives of America's veterans. We wish him
continued success in his future endeavors as well as a long and
fulfilling retirement.
____________________
HONORING JEANNE KAIDY FOR HER ACHIEVEMENT IN BEING SELECTED AS A
RECIPIENT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE TEACHING
______
HON. TOM REED
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeanne Kaidy, a
recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and
Science Teaching.
Ms. Kaidy has been teaching at McQuaid Jesuit High School in
Rochester, NY, for twelve years, currently teaching Biology and AP
Environmental Science. Ms. Kaidy serves as chair of the Science
Department at the high school and an adjunct instructor at Monroe
Community College in Rochester, NY. Her lessons have encouraged her
students to develop skills in collecting and analyzing field data; as a
result, Ms. Kaidy's students continuously achieve some of the highest
marks among schools in New York State on the AP Environmental Science
exam. Ms. Kaidy's commitment to the academic growth of her students and
dedication to her work is deserved of this high honor.
I am proud to honor her for the outstanding achievement of this
award. I hope her excellence will be an example to the whole Nation and
its hard working teachers.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today our national debt is
$13,879,785,054,580.12.
On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national
debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.
This means the national debt has increased by $3,241,359,308,286.32
so far this Congress.
This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children
and all future Americans.
____________________
IN HONOR OF JOHN BELSKI AND HIS 23 YEARS OF EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO OUR
COMMUNITY AT WAVE3 NEWS
______
HON. JOHN A. YARMUTH
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to mark the
retirement of one of Louisville's finest meteorologists and his 23
years of service to my hometown.
Like most Louisvillians, I have trusted John Belski's dependable
forecasts for the last two decades. No easy task, especially given that
our community has faced ice storms, floods, and wind storms in the last
two years alone. But, through it all, Louisville could count on John
Belski to deliver accurate reporting with an award-winning smile.
In his tenure at WAVE 3, Belski reported on weather so unprecedented
that it would make even the most seasoned professional nervous. Day in
and day out, his attention to detail and calm demeanor provided
reassurance and even life-saving information to thousands during the
most trying of times.
His talents are not limited to just meteorology. Belski authored an
internationally recognized weather folklore book, and was the 2005
World Dainty Champion--a feat achieved while broadcasting live on the
air.
We in Louisville are grateful to John and will surely miss his
expertise. I am proud to join all of our community in thanking him for
his work and wishing him the best in the next chapter of his life.
____________________
HONORING MAJOR GENERAL MATTHEW KAMBIC
______
HON. STEVE AUSTRIA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. AUSTRIA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major General
Matthew Kambic for his service to the State of Ohio and our nation on
the occasion of his retirement.
It is an honor to join the people of Ohio's 7th Congressional
District in congratulating General Kambic upon his retirement as the
Assistant Adjutant General for the Ohio Army National Guard for the
State of Ohio.
Showing exemplary leadership, he has commanded at many levels
including the detachment, troop, battalion and brigade levels. As
Assistant Adjutant General for Army he worked to support Ohio's Army
National Guard by overseeing the readiness of over 11,000 service
members and creating administrative policies and priorities.
General Kambic has a distinguished military background. Prior to
joining the Ohio National Guard, he served in the U.S. Army, 66th Armor
Battalion, 2nd Armored Division for four years achieving the rank of
Sergeant.
He joined the Ohio National Guard while attending Youngstown State
University and was commissioned as an armor officer in 1981. In his
career, General Kambic also earned his Master of Science in
Administration from Central Michigan University.
Previous to his role as Assistant Adjutant General, he served as the
Chief of Staff at Joint Force Headquarters, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans at Joint Force Headquarters, and Commander of the
37th Armored Brigade.
General Kambic holds many awards and distinctions including the
Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf
clusters, and the Army Commendation Medal with four oak leaf clusters.
For his many years of dedication to the State of Ohio and to this
nation, I again join the people of Ohio's 7th Congressional District
[[Page 22481]]
in extending our best wishes upon his retirement and wish him success
in all his future endeavors.
____________________
NANCY CHEN: A FIGHTER FOR WORKING WOMEN
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I want to recognize Nancy Chen, who is
retiring after 26 years of service. Nancy is a remarkable woman who has
devoted much of her life to promoting and creating policies to help
working women and to empowering women and immigrants.
Nancy led the Midwest regional office of Women's Bureau for 13 years.
This is the only federal agency designated by Congress to address
issues and concerns of working women. Part of the U.S. Department of
Labor, its mission is to develop policies and standards to safeguard
the interests of working women by advocating for their economic
security and that of their families; and promoting quality work
environments. Nancy directed and developed the regional program through
collaboration and partnership with women's organizations, employers,
unions, and other government agencies in the states of Illinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Under Nancy's leadership, the regional office has effectively
promoted non-traditional occupations for women, including green jobs
and careers in science, technology and engineering. She has helped
achieve concrete advances in workplace flexibility and pay equity.
Nancy's career highlights include public and community service in
Illinois and Washington, DC. Prior to joining the Women's Bureau, Nancy
served as Director of Asian Pacific American Outreach at the Office of
Presidential Personnel in the Clinton White House. Before that, she was
Director of U.S. Senator Paul Simon's Chicago office, overseeing the
Senator's legislative and constituent program relating to Chicago and
northern Illinois for 6 years. As a key advisor, she played an
important role in Senator Simon's achievements relating to family
immigration legislation and economic development in Chicago's immigrant
communities.
Nancy serves on the Board of Counselors at the Paul Simon Public
Policy Institute. She is also a member on the Gender Equity Advisory
Committee for the Illinois State Board of Education. Nancy's community
service includes being the founder and past president of the National
Women's Political Caucus of Greater Chicago from 1992 to 1994; member
of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on
Civil Rights for over 10 years; and co-chair of the Obama's Asian
American and Pacific Islander, AAPI, National Leadership Council in
2007 and 2008.
Nancy received the 2009 Milestone Award from the Asian American
Institute and the first Sandra Otaka Legacy Award from the Asian
American Action Fund, Chicago Chapter. She was the recipient of the
2004 Risk Taker and Enabler Award from the Organization of Chinese
Americans and the 2009 Distinguished Career Service Award from the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Nancy is a skilled organizer, an expert networker, true public
servant, and a good friend. Her advocacy and the policies that she
helped create will continue to empower and strengthen working women
even after her retirement. Her accomplishments are many, and I want to
congratulate her on her decades of service to women and families.
____________________
BRIEFING ON ``SAUDI ARABIA: FUELING RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND
EXTREMISM''
______
HON. TRENT FRANKS
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the
following for the Record:
Remarks of Maria McFarland, Deputy Washington Director, Human Rights
Watch
In the last couple of years, Saudi King Abdullah has
received praise in some circles for having taken a few
cautious steps in support of religious tolerance through his
Interfaith Dialogue Initiative. But that initiative has been
limited to international settings.
Within Saudi Arabia, repression of religious freedom
continues unabated, particularly with respect to Shia
Muslims. Saudi textbooks, including those used abroad,
include material that promotes hostility toward the Shia
creed and other religions and may in some cases justify
violence. The right of non-Muslims to worship in private is
subject to the whims of the local religious police. Public
worship of faiths other than Islam remains prohibited as a
matter of policy.
Shia Saudis, who make up an estimated 10-15 percent of the
population, are the group most affected by repression of
religious freedom. Shia face systematic exclusion in
employment, as well as discrimination in religious education
and worship.
In some cases, this discrimination amounts to persecution.
Professing Shia beliefs in private or in public may lead to
arrest and detention. Saudi Shia visiting the holy shrines in
Mecca and Medina regularly face harassment by the Wahhabi
religious police. A government promise to update the vague
law outlining religious police jurisdiction and powers has
remained unfulfilled for three years.
In al-Ahsa' province, the governor, Prince Badr bin Jilawi,
has repeatedly had Shia citizens arrested and detained on his
authority and in violation of Saudi criminal procedure law
simply for praying together in private or publicly displaying
banners or slogans or wearing clothing associated with
certain Shia rituals. In late January or mid-February, six
young Shia of al-Ahsa', between 19 and 24 years old, were
detained on Prince Badr's orders because of their peaceful
exercise of their religious beliefs. As of mid-September,
they remained in detention without charge or trial despite a
limit of six months for pre-trial detention under the Saudi
criminal procedure code. The Saudi government has yet to take
meaningful steps to stop these abuses or bring to justice
those responsible.
Shia face officially sanctioned discrimination in the
judicial system too. There has been no progress in affording
Shia outside of the Eastern Province with courts for personal
status matters to conclude marriages and adjudicate divorces,
inheritances, child custody disputes, and such matters. This
affects the so-called Nakhawila, Twelver Shia in Medina, and
the Ismailis in Najran province as well as a small group of
Zaidi Muslims in Jizan and Najran provinces. There is no
separation of secular from religious law in Saudi courts, and
all Shia, including in the Eastern Province where they have
their own personal status courts, must follow Sunni law as
interpreted in Saudi Arabia. Shia are sometimes not allowed
to testify in court.
Saudi officials who engage in anti-Shia speech rarely face
any reprimand for doing so. For example, on December 31,
2009, Shaikh Muhammad al-`Arifi, the government-paid imam of
the Buradi mosque in Riyadh, as well as Salih bin Humaid,
Saudi chief judge, visited frontline troops in southern Saudi
Arabia fighting Yemeni Huthi rebels, who belong to a branch
of Shiism, albeit different from that of most Saudi Shia. Al-
`Arifi can be seen in photos wearing camouflage, firing
weapons, and preaching to soldiers. Press reports said al-
`Arifi stressed the necessity of jihad (holy war) and
commended the soldiers for performing their national and
religious duty. Upon returning to Riyadh, al-`Arifi, in a
sermon on Friday, January 1, 2010 condemned the Huthi rebels
and called Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani--an Iranian living in
Iraq, who is the highest religious authority for many Saudi
Shia-an ``obscene, irreligious atheist.''
Meanwhile, Saudi authorities have taken steps to silence
Shia critics. Saudi domestic intelligence agents have been
holding Munir al-Jassas, a Shia who criticized state
repression against the Shia online, in detention without
charge for over a year. On June 22, 2008, authorities
arrested Shia cleric Shaikh Tawfiq al-`Amir, after he spoke
out in a sermon against a May 30 statement signed by 22
prominent Saudi Wahhabi clerics, in which they called the
``Shia sect an evil among the sects of the Islamic nation,
and the greatest enemy and deceivers of the Sunni people.''
Of the 22 signatories, II were current government officials
and 6 were former government officials.
In its annual reports on religious freedom on Saudi Arabia,
the United States Department of State has consistently and
accurately documented severe repression of religious freedom
and systematic violations against certain groups, including
especially the Shia. Yet, while the United States has for
years designated Saudi Arabia as a Country of Particular
Concern, it has failed to take meaningful steps to promote
reform in Saudi Arabia. The United States has continually
waived sanctions provided under the law, and aside from
issuing the annual report, has remained mostly silent in
public on the subject.
The United States has also applauded King Abdullah's
Interfaith Dialogue Initiative (IDI) as evidence of greater
promotion of religious tolerance. Cynical observers would see
the IDI as a promotional tour of Western countries designed
to soften Saudi Arabia's image of an exporter of religious
hatred. Uncritical supporters of the initiative claim it as
evidence that the kingdom is opening up.
Whatever its motivation, the fact remains that this
initiative abroad has had no policy repercussions at home.
Saudis recognize domestic state-controlled media reporting on
[[Page 22482]]
the IDI as an official campaign, and it only serves to
highlight the stark contrasts between ideals upheld abroad
and the harsh reality of repression at home. If the United
States is serious about promoting religious tolerance in
Saudi Arabia, it cannot remain content to publish a report
once a year about religious repression or to praise Saudi
Arabia for symbolic commitments to religious tolerance.
Instead, it must take a clear, public stance on Saudi
Arabia's systematic repression of religion and press the
Saudi government to undertake effective institutional reforms
to end discrimination and repression on the basis of religion
in that country.
Remarks of Mansour Al-Hadj, Editor, Aafaq
At the outset, I would like to say that my paper is based
on my personal experience as someone who was born and grew up
in Saudi Arabia, and has always been concerned about Saudi
Arabia--since it's my homeland and also since I have been
monitoring the Saudi media closely for the last four years as
co-founder of the liberal Arabic-language website Aafaq, of
which I am currently editor-in-chief.
There is great conflict and tension between liberals and
conservatives in Saudi Arabia--but it is unfortunately a fake
war, because both sides are working for the government--that
is, the House of Saud. Both the liberals--who are actively
writing articles for government-owned newspapers or appearing
on government-owned TV channels--and the conservatives--who
are active in mosques and on websites and who are also
appearing on government-owned TV channels--are well aware of
their limits and of the red lines that they must not cross.
The one red line that neither conservatives nor liberals
dare to cross is talking or writing anything about political
reform or the rights of religious minorities. Those who
refuse to follow these limits are banned from writing in
Saudi newspapers, and many of them are imprisoned and/or
prohibited from leaving the country.
Saudi liberals are very hesitant to question the illegal
arrest and persecution of reformers. One such case, that went
completely unreported in Saudi Arabia, is that of Hadi Al-
Mutif, an Ismai'i Shi'ite who has been imprisoned since 1993,
serving what is by now the longest prison sentence ever in
Saudi Arabia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Also, not a
single Saudi newspaper reported on the arrest of Mokhlif Al-
Shammari, a Saudi human rights activist accused of annoying
others for posting online articles criticizing radical
sheikhs who call for the eradication of the Shi'ites.
Saudi liberals have never advocated for the reformers who
openly demand political and constitutional reform--such as
Ali Aldumaini, Matrook Al-Faleh, and Abdallah Al-Hamid, who
are officially banned from writing in Saudi newspapers and
from traveling outside the country. The liberals do not dare
to question the brutal punishments of beheading, amputation
and flogging carried out by the Saudi authorities. They avoid
writing about the plight of the Shi'a minorities whose
mosques are repeatedly shut down and whose imams are arrested
for conducting prayers in their homes. They never dare to
call for a new and modern interpretation of the Koran, never
dare to advocate for gays' and lesbians' right to not be
punished or even killed for something they could not choose.
All of these issues are on the other side of the red line
that they cannot cross.
Last month, Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha al-
Huwaider was interviewed by the LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting
Corporation) ``No Censorship'' show, with airing scheduled
for October 2010. However, the show has not yet aired.
Observers said that a high-level Saudi official ordered LBC
not to broadcast Wajeha's interview, in which she talked
about women's right to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, the plight
of the Shi'a minorities in the country, the male guardian
system, and the unjust punishment of Saudi reformers. Wajeha
is banned from writing in Saudi newspapers.
Last week, the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah refused to publish an
article by female university professor Fawziyah Abdallah Abu
Khaled. In her article, Abu Khaled called the government to
allow those who oppose its policies to be part of society and
for it to stop persecuting and criminalizing them. She wrote:
``Peaceful opposition is part of the social power of any
society, and it should not be handled with hostility,
eradication, or constant persecution.''
The only people who enjoy freedom of expression are the
radicals--as long as they do not call for Jihad against the
House of Saud. Sheikh Abdel Rahman Al-Barak has called many
times for the killing of Shi'ites and many Saudi liberals,
and issued a new fatwa stating that the U.S. is the real
enemy of the Muslims and that Jihad cannot be superseded by
international conventions.
You might ask, what about the launch of the Saudi national
dialogue, the establishment of King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology, the appointment of the first female
vice minister for women's education, the municipal election,
the interfaith conferences organized by the Saudi government
to which Christians and Jews were invited, and the recent
ruling restricting the right to issue fatwas to senior
religious leaders.
The national dialogue has accomplished nothing; the new
university is a closed and isolated institution for
international students and a very few Saudis that is aimed at
producing Saudi engineers and doctors, not at encouraging
unfettered research, and certainly not to produce new and
modern interpretations of the Koran that are peaceful and
that respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
university is one of dozens of Islamic universities in Saudi
Arabia. The appointment of Noura Al-Fayz as the first female
member of the Saudi Arabia Council of Ministers means
nothing--she still cannot drive a car, travel by herself, go
jogging or engage in other sports, choose her own husband, or
receive decent child support if she divorces. Regarding the
election, we all know that women were not allowed to vote;
and the interfaith conferences will remain meaningless until
a church is built in Saudi Arabia and Christians are allowed
to worship freely. As to the restriction on fatwas, no one
pays any attention at all; new fatwas are issued on a daily
basis.
The House of Saud has used its oil wealth to control
people's lives. Whether conservative or liberal, ultimately
people need to put food on the table, and as long as almost
everything in the kingdom is controlled by the government, it
will be very difficult to both cross red lines and make a
living. That is how the House of Saud maintains its game of
balance.
I understand this on a very personal level; I have seen how
people struggle to swim upstream under totalitarian regimes.
What I cannot understand, however, is how a country like the
U.S. that has always championed human Rights and religious
freedom has been unable to free a young man who has been
imprisoned for 17 years because of his religious belief as an
Isma'ili Shi'ite. I can only hope that the House of Saud is
not aiming to play the game of balance internationally--
because I have heard that a $60 billion arms deal is in the
works.
Remarks of Nina Shea, Director, Hudson Institute's Center for Religious
Freedom
Last Sunday, a December 2009 cable that was cited by the
New York Times but has not yet been posted by Wikileaks says
that Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni
militant groups such as Al Qaeda.
America's top financial-counterterrorism official, Treasury
Undersecretary Stuart Levey, believes there's a strong link
between education and support for terror. As he wrote in the
Washington Post last June, to end support for such terror,
among other steps: ``we must focus on educational reform in
key locations to ensure that intolerance has no place in
curricula and textbooks. . . . [U]nless the next generation
of children is taught to reject violent extremism, we will
forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next
group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.''
Saudi Arabia is one such ``key location.'' The kingdom is
not just any country with problematic textbooks. As the
controlling authority of the two holiest shrines of Islam,
Saudi Arabia is able to disseminate its religious materials
among the millions of Muslims making the hajj to Mecca each
year. Such teachings can, in this context, make a great
impression. In addition, Saudi textbooks are also posted on
the Saudi Education Ministry's website and are shipped and
distributed free by a vast Sunni infrastructure established
with Saudi oil wealth to many Muslim schools, mosques and
libraries throughout the world. In his book The Looming
Tower, Lawrence Wright asserts that while Saudis constitute
only 1 percent of the world's Muslims, they pay ``90 percent
of the expenses of the entire faith, overriding other
traditions of Islam.'' Others estimate that, on an annual
basis, Saudi Arabia spends three times as much in exporting
its Wahhabi ideology as did the Soviets in propagating
Communism during the height of the Cold War. From the
Netherlands and Bosnia, to Algeria and Tunisia, to Pakistan
and Afghanistan, and to Somalia and Nigeria, nationals of
these countries have reported that over the past twenty to
thirty years local Islamic traditions are being transformed
and radicalized under intensifying Saudi influence. The late
President of Indonesia Abdurrahman Wahid wrote that Wahhabism
was making inroads even in his famously tolerant nation of
Indonesia.
To understand why Jim Woolsey and other terrorism experts
call Wahhabism as it spreads through the Islamic diaspora
``kindling for Usama Bin Laden's match,'' it is important to
know the content of Saudi textbooks. They teach, along with
many other noxious lessons, that Jews and Christians are
``enemies,'' and they dogmatically instruct that that it is
permissible, even obligatory, to kill various groups of
``unbelievers''--apostates (which includes Muslim moderates
who reject Saudi Wahhabi doctrine), polytheists (which can
include Shias and Sufis, as well as Christians, Hindus, and
Buddhists), Jews, and adulterers. The texts also teach that
the ``punishment for homosexuality is death'' and discusses
that this can be done by immolation by fire, stoning or
throwing the accused from a high place.
Under the Saudi Education Ministry's method of rote
learning, these teachings amount to indoctrination, starting
in first grade and continuing through high school,
[[Page 22483]]
where militant jihad on behalf of ``truth'' has for years
been taught as a sacred duty. The ``lesson goals'' of one of
the text books is to have the children list the
``reprehensible'' qualities of Jewish people and another,
that Jews are pigs and apes.
Reformist Muslims can also be labeled as ``apostates,'' and
thus they can be killed with impunity. In the opening fatwa
of a Saudi government booklet distributed to educate Muslim
immigrants in 2005 by the Saudi embassy in the United States,
the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (a cabinet level government
post) responded to a question about a Muslim preacher in a
European mosque who said ``declaring Jews and Christians
infidels is not allowed.'' The Grand Mufti accused the
unnamed European cleric of apostasy: ``He who casts doubts
about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his own
infidelity.''
The intellectual pioneer of takfiri doctrine is the
medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Tamiyya. He is cited as a moral
guide in the Saudi textbooks--including in the newly edited,
heavily redacted texts used in the Islamic Saudi Academy, a
school operated in Fairfax County, VA, by the Saudi embassy.
Students of Saudi high school textbooks are instructed to
consult his writings when they face vexing moral questions.
West Point's Center for Combating Terror found that Ibn
Tamiyya's are ``by far the most popular texts for modern
jihadis.''
Saudi foreign-affairs officials and ambassadors do not
dispute the need for education reform. Their reactions,
though, have alternated over the years between insisting that
reforms had already been made and stalling for time by
stating that the reforms would take several years more to
complete, maybe banking on the hope that American attention
would drift.
Four years ago, the Saudis gave a solemn and specific
promise to the United States. Its terms were described in a
letter from the U.S. assistant secretary of state for
legislative affairs to Sen. Jon Kyl, then chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Homeland Security: ``In July of 2006, the Saudi Government
confirmed to us its policy to undertake a program of textbook
reform to eliminate all passages that disparage or promote
hatred toward any religion or religious groups.''
Furthermore, the State Department letter reported that this
pledge would be fulfilled ``in time for the start of the 2008
school year.''
Saudi Arabia has failed to keep its promise to the United
States. One Wikileak cable from the U.S. embassy reports that
Saudi education reform seems ``glacial.'' In its newly
released 2010 annual report on religious freedom, the State
Department itself asserted, albeit with diplomatic
understatement, with respect to Saudi Ministry of Education
textbooks: ``Despite government revisions to elementary and
secondary education textbooks, they retained language
intolerant of other religious traditions, especially Jewish,
Christian, and Shi'a beliefs, including commands to hate
infidels and kill apostates.'' (emphasis added.)
Meanwhile, Saudi royals have stepped up their philanthropy
to higher education around the world, for which they have
garnered many encomiums and awards. Hardly a month goes by
without a news report that one of the princes is endowing a
new center of Islamic and Arabic studies, or a business or
scientific department, at a foreign university. The king
himself recently founded a new university for advanced
science and technology inside Saudi Arabia.
These efforts have bought the royal family much good will,
but they should not distract our political leaders from the
central concern of the Saudi 1-12 religious curriculum. This
is not the time for heaping unqualified praise on the aging
monarch for promoting ``knowledge-based education,''
``extending the hand of friendship to people of other
faiths,'' promoting ``principles of moderation tolerance, and
mutual respect,'' and the like (phrases with which our
diplomatic statements on Saudi Arabia are replete).
The State Department needs to begin regular and detail
reporting on the remaining objectionable and violent passages
in Saudi government textbooks and to press in a sustained
manner for the kingdom to keep its 2006 pledge to us
regarding textbook reform. As USCIRF recommends, the
administration should also lift the indefinite waiver of any
action pursuant to the designation of Saudi Arabia as a
``Country of Particular Concern'' under the International
Religious Freedom Act--the only ``CPC'' to receive an
indefinite waiver.
In one of the Wikileaks cables written earlier this year on
Saudi King Abdullah to Secretary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador
James Smith makes the following observation: ``Reflecting his
Bedouin roots, he judges his counterparts on the basis of
character, honesty, and trust. He expects commitments to be
respected and sees actions, not words, as the true test of
commitment. . . .''
Bedouin or not, we should start demanding the same from
him.
Remarks by R. James Woolsey, Former Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency
I met on several occasions with the late President of
Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid, after his Presidency but while
he was leading the world's largest libertarian Muslim
organization, Nandlatul Ulama. What a truly magnificent man
he was. Nandlatul Ulama's members, as is the case for the
vast majority of Indonesia's Muslims, espouse essentially the
Enlightenment's embrace of reason and in particular it's
separation of the spiritual and secular realms. Indonesia's
traditions in this regard harken back hundreds of years, and
this country that contains more Muslims than any other does
not call itself a Muslim nation.
There are hundreds of millions of such truly moderate
Muslims in the world, including a very substantial share of
those in the U.S. They should be regarded as our colleagues
and friends in trying to build a peaceful and prosperous
modern world. To use a very rough analogy to the Cold War
years, such truly moderate Muslims are something like the
Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists--George Orwell,
Helmut Schmidt--who were our colleagues in winning the Cold
War against a communist empire that called itself
``socialist'' but whose essence was totalitarian.
Of course terrorists, whether Muslim or not, are not our
colleagues and friends but our enemies through and through,
just as were the communists' instruments of violence such as
the Spetznaz. But some have come to believe that in the world
of Islam today these two groupings--moderate Muslims and
terrorists--are the only ones that exist. Sadly such is not
the case.
During the Cold War there were non-violent totalitarians--
such as many members of the American Communist Party--who
fervently worked for the triumph of communism and the
establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat but
utilizing non-violent means. So also today there are some
Muslim groups and individuals who work hard to replace our
Constitution with the totalitarian socio-political doctrine
that Islam calls shariah. Shariah has as its objective the
establishment of a world-wide caliphate--a theocratic
totalitarian state. Along the way to this objective adherence
to shariah entails accepting a set of doctrines that calls
for: death to apostates and homosexuals, brutal treatment of
women, rejection of democracy (and indeed all man-made law),
anti-semitism, and much else.
In order to bring about the caliphate--the complete
rejection of Article VI of the Constitution--it is not always
tactically wise to utilize violence, or violent jihad.
Sometimes what Muslim Brotherhood writers call ``civilization
jihad'' is a shrewder tactic. It is well-defined in a
document, ``An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group'' entered into evidence in the
2008 case, United States v. Holy Land Foundation. The
document was written by Mohammed Akram, a senior Hams leader
in the U.S. and a member of the Board of Directors of the
Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The document makes it
clear that what is involved is a ``settlement process'' lead
by the Muslim Brotherhood that constitutes a ``grand jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from
within and `sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands
and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated. . .
.''
In the Holy Land Foundation case, which dealt with
terrorist financing, it was established that a number of
Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR and ISNA,
though not indicted, were part of the terror-financing
conspiracy.
In short, as during the Cold War, we need to understand
that the central distinction is between those who accept
democracy and the rule of (man-made) law and those who do
not. We were on the same side during the Cold War as
socialists George Orwell and Helmut Schmidt and both the Red
Army and Gus Hall were on the other. Today we can make common
cause with all Muslims who are neither planning to blow up
airliners nor working on ``eliminating and destroying the
Western civilization from within.''
But we must not ignore those who are making such efforts or
be deterred from dealing with them just because they engage
in name-calling, such as labeling those who call them to
account as ``Islamophobes.'' Those who bravely stood up
against the Spanish Inquisition--whether Muslims, Jews, or
Christians--were not ``Christianophobes.'' We need to find
Constitutional means--drawings on our experiences during the
Cold War--to thwart the Islamist sabotage called for by the
Muslim Brotherhood document and to do so in such a way as to
protect the rights of those Muslims who are not engaged in
either violent jihad or ``civilization jihad'' against us.
This will require us to think clearly about how to deal
with Saudi Arabia, our ally on some aspects of fighting
terrorism, but also the principal source of funding of a
major share of the terrorists who attack us and the teaching
of hatred that fuels the civilization jihad as well.
Above all, we cannot begin to deal with these issues unless
we speak clearly. It is time to end the euphemisms and the
verbal dancing. One is hot accusing all Christians of burning
women at the stake if one examines how the Salem witch trials
grew out of some Puritan thinking. So too with totalitarian
offshoots of any religion, including Islamism. Islamists'
efforts to establish a caliphate and sabotage our
Constitution have
[[Page 22484]]
to be called what they are--they are not random acts of
``violent extremists.'' They are, for Islamists, jihad. And
they must be defeated.
____________________
HONORING JOSHUA MATTHEW LEVINE
______
HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the untimely
passing of an outstanding young man, Joshua Matthew Levine, one of my
constituents who lived in North Haven, NY. Josh, who was only 35 years
old, was a much beloved and well-known advocate for organic farming and
healthy living. He left a successful job in New York City to move to
the Hamptons where he became involved in the burgeoning organic farming
movement that has recently attracted so many talented young people
across our nation. He began as a volunteer at Quail Hill Farm in
Amagansett, a stewardship project of the Peconic Land Trust, a non-
profit land preservation organization. Quail Hill is one of the
original CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farms in the United
States and serves 200 families as well as supplies food to local
restaurants, schools and food pantries. After working a year as a
volunteer at the 30-acre farm, he became an apprentice and then was
hired as the farm's marketing manager. He also operated the
organization's weekly Saturday Farmer's Market.
Along with his wife Susan Ann Jones Levine, he threw himself
wholeheartedly into the business of promoting healthy food and healthy
living and he would go out of his way to explain the benefits of
sustainable agriculture and organic farming to others. He was devoted
to his wife and their two children, three-year-old Willa and six-month-
old Ezra. At a time when many think of the Hamptons as the land of
glitz and glamour, it is refreshing to encounter a young person of such
substance with an unwavering dedication to values that make our world a
better place--cooperation, hard work and respect for the earth we live
on. Josh Levine truly lived his beliefs. He was devoted to the idea of
sustaining the land for future generations. On days when the Farmer's
Market was open, he would arise at 5 a.m. and go to the farm to get the
food and deliver it to the market in time for the opening at 9 a.m.
More than 600 people attended his funeral and told stories about how
hard he worked and how much he did to help others understand the
benefits of healthy living.
One woman recalled how she inadvertently left a large bunch of kale
that she had purchased at the farm stand one Saturday. Josh knew that
she needed the kale to help in her fight against cancer, and he spent
three hours tracking her down after the farm stand had closed and
successfully delivered the kale to her freshly packed on ice so that it
would not wilt in the sweltering August heat. He believed in what he
was doing, and his passion and enthusiasm attracted others. He enjoyed
cooking and was an avid follower of the slow food movement. As a
tribute to his good works, the mayor ordered the flag to be flown at
half mast on the day of his funeral, a tribute usually reserved for
military personnel.
It is with great sadness that I mark the passing of such a vibrant
young man, so involved in his community and devoted to his beliefs.
____________________
HONORING MAJOR GENERAL GREGORY WAYT
______
HON. STEVE AUSTRIA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. AUSTRIA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major General
Gregory Wayt for his service to the State of Ohio and our nation on the
occasion of his retirement.
It is an honor to join the people of Ohio's 7th Congressional
District in congratulating General Wayt upon his retirement as Adjutant
General for the State of Ohio. Serving as Adjutant General since 2004,
General Wayt commanded the Ohio National Guard and was responsible for
overseeing the day-to-day operation and management of the readiness,
fiscal, personnel, equipment, and real property resources of the Guard.
The Ohio National Guard consists of the Ohio Army National Guard,
Ohio Air National Guard, Ohio Military Reserve, and Ohio Naval Militia,
totaling more than 17,000 personnel.
A 1975 alumnus of The Ohio State University, General Wayt is a
Distinguished Military graduate of the university's Reserve Officer
Training Corps program. He then served on active duty as an Air Defense
Artillery Officer with the U.S. Army until joining the Ohio Army
National Guard in 1980.
As a member of the Ohio Army National Guard, General Wayt has
commanded and has held staff officer assignments at all levels. Prior
to serving as Ohio's Adjutant General, he served as the Commander for
the 145th Regiment and the Ohio Regional Training Institute.
He also served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Operations,
Training, and Military Support and as the Joint Chief of Staff for the
Joint Force Headquarters for the Ohio National Guard.
General Wayt has led a distinguished career and holds many awards
including the Legion of Merit with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, the
Meritorious Service Medal with one Silver Oak Leaf Cluster and One
Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Army Commendation Medal with three
Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.
Ohio's 7th Congressional District has been well served by General
Wayt as the district includes the Springfield Air National Guard Base
and the Air and Army National Guard Units located at the Rickenbacker
International Airport. He has also coordinated efforts in cooperation
with the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the Defense Supply Center
of Columbus. I personally have worked alongside General Wayt as he has
been an integral part of supporting our national guard and military
facilities across Ohio and our nation.
For his many years of dedication to the State of Ohio and to this
nation, I again join the people of Ohio's 7th Congressional District in
extending our best wishes upon his retirement and wish him success in
all his future endeavors.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE SERVICE OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
_____
HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, as my service in Congress and my term as
Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure come to
a close, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the
professional staff of the Committee. These are the dedicated
individuals who do the research, the analysis, the drafting, the
corrections, the negotiations, and the leg work needed to bring
legislation to the Floor of this House and get it enacted into law.
I honor them all for their diligence, tenacity, intelligence,
insightfulness, loyalty, and friendship.
David Heymsfeld has served the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for 35 years, as Democratic Staff Director of our
Subcommittee on Aviation from 1975 to 1995, and as Democratic Staff
Director of the full Committee from 1996 to 2010. He has been the lead
staff on legislative and oversight issues in aviation, and, since 1995,
has directed all staff activities of the Full Committee.
His responsibilities have required him to master the policy issues
involved, to understand the positions of all interested parties and of
government officials, to negotiate solutions, which achieve the
Committee's policy objectives, to draft legislation, and to plan
strategies for passing legislation. He has carried those
responsibilities for major aviation legislation, and, since 1995, he
has also played a major role in legislation affecting the Federal
programs for highway and transit, rail, Coast Guard, water resources,
and public buildings.
Our Director of Communications, Jim Berard, has been the voice of the
Democratic side of the Committee for 13 years, and served in my
personal office and that of Sen. Kent Conrad for a decade prior. An
award-winning journalist before coming to Capitol Hill, Jim has proven
himself to be a master communicator, adept at interpreting complex
legislative issues for lay audiences.
Jim has been at the center of nearly every major transportation issue
I have faced in the past 23 years, handling inquiries from the media,
getting them answers, shaping our message, and delivering that message
to the public.
Jim is also an accomplished writer, a published author, an historian,
and a humanitarian who spends his free time helping build homes for
Habitat for Humanity in Maryland, and the St. Bernard Project in
Louisiana.
He has been a trusted Member of my personal and Committee staff, and
I am grateful to him for his service.
Mary Kerr's extensive communications and public policy experience,
along with her legal
[[Page 22485]]
education, have made her an invaluable member of my team for the past
fifteen years. When I became Chairman in 2007, Mary moved from my
personal office, where she had served as Communications Director and
Legislative Assistant for eleven years, to become Press Secretary for
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. For the past four
years, she has served very effectively as the principal spokesperson
for four subcommittees: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation;
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management;
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials; and Water Resources and
Environment.
As T&I Committee Press Secretary, Mary has executed all phases of a
comprehensive public affairs program to drive the Committee's
visibility in the national news and trade media. She has led the way to
successfully promote the Committee's priorities, such as protecting the
Nation's waters, holding the railroad industry to the highest level of
safety, and making comprehensive reforms to prevent future offshore
drilling accidents.
Julie Carpenter Lotz has been a part of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee staff for four years, working as a
Communications Assistant in the Committee's Communications Office.
Julie has been a welcome asset to the Committee and to me. In
addition to her professional knowledge and abilities, she has been a
great resource for me in personally providing unique information on
Committee-related issues that aren't ordinarily noticed. I have found
this to be a valuable service.
Julie is intelligent, hard-working and extremely competent. Her
communication skills, both written and verbal, as well as her editing
abilities, are excellent.
Also, she has been eager to learn new procedures and to expand her
knowledge whenever possible.
Julie has an excellent rapport with both staff members and public
figures, and is respected by her colleagues for her considerate nature
and helpful attitude.
Trinita Evon Brown has over twenty years of experience working for
the House and has been with the Committee for seventeen years. She has
served the Committee very effectively as Senior Counsel for Oversight
and Investigation.
Ms. Brown is responsible for the Committee's oversight and
investigations of all six Subcommittee jurisdictions. She has a proven
record of accomplishment of high quality work, dedication, and public
service. Her efforts have led to millions in recouped Federal tax
dollars and the cession of numerous policies and practices harmful to
our nation's interests.
Trinita has served the Committee in a variety of positions,
including: Counsel for Emergency Management and Counsel for Railroads.
In addition, she performed superbly with Full Committee
responsibilities including highways, budget and appropriations and
Committee jurisdiction.
Her keen judgment and integrity have been an asset to the Committee.
Ken Kopocis has served the Committee as senior counsel conducting
oversight. Ken began with the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment in 1985 and served as staff director of that Subcommittee
for 13 years. Ken possesses the skills to anticipate, understand and
exceed the needs of Members of Congress. He has unparalleled knowledge
and experience related to protecting and improving water quality and
water resources. His areas of experience include matters relating to
water resources development, conservation and management; water
pollution control and water infrastructure; hazardous waste cleanup;
transportation; and, emergency and disaster response.
Ken has been part of every Water Resources Development Act for a
generation. He has worked tirelessly to advance water quality and
public health, including initiatives such as the Clean Water Act, the
Oil Pollution Act, the response to the events of September 11, 2001,
efforts to protect the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades,
the Superfund program, and invasive species legislation.
Joseph Wender has worked as a Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations for nearly two years. He joined the Committee in
February 2009, the same month in which Congress enacted the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Joe's primary responsibilities have
included coordinating the Committee's vigorous oversight of that
legislation. Joe served as the lead staffer on nearly a dozen Recovery
Act oversight hearings and also worked prodigiously to publish a
monthly Committee Recovery Act report.
Joe always ensured that Committee Members had the most accurate and
up-to-date information on Recovery Act implementation. In fact, I carry
a `pocket guide,' which Joe produced, which details the use of Recovery
Act funds, including projects out to bid, under contract, and underway.
I have used that pocket guide daily, and am grateful to Joe for
providing such useful irrefutable information. I am proud of the
standard he set in carrying out our oversight of the stimulus
legislation.
During his service as counsel to the Aviation Subcommittee since
February of this year, Alex Burkett has demonstrated insight and
abilities as a judicious advocate, writer, and critical thinker. A
pilot and lawyer with jet fuel in the veins, Alex has provided
thoughtful advice steeped in deep substantive knowledge of aviation and
the law. He is a tireless advocate on issues of particular significance
to me, including airline competition and aviation safety.
This year Alex took the lead role in planning the Subcommittee's
hearing on the United-Continental merger. In the midst of intense
conference negotiations on milestone aviation legislation, Alex
researched the issues presented by the merger and planned the hearing.
His briefing memorandum to Members summarizing the many important
issues raised by the merger was insightful and extremely well-written,
as is everything he writes, and reflected his steady judgment, natural
curiosity, and reliable expertise.
Michael Rodriguez joined the staff of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation as Senior Professional Staff in October
2009. As a 1979 graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy,
a Navy reserve officer and veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, and
an experienced merchant mariner, Mike has brought a unique and valuable
perspective to the Subcommittee.
Mike was an important contributor to the process that led to the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 becoming law on October 15, 2010.
During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and response, Mike helped draft
legislation to address several issues related to the operation of the
rig. He was able to bring his experience as a mariner to discussions
about the accident with some of the Deepwater Horizon survivors. Mike's
reputation throughout the U.S. maritime industry and his knowledge of
international maritime affairs have made him a much appreciated asset
to the Subcommittee.
Also, I would be remiss not to recognize the dedication of our Coast
Guard Fellow, Lieutenant Commander Zeita Merchant. With over 13 years
of Coast Guard service, she became an asset to my Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, and worked diligently on a wide
range of maritime issues making significant contributions to oversight
hearings and legislation.
During her short time on the staff, Lieutenant Commander Merchant
made noteworthy contributions on major legislation with her expertise
in marine inspections and environmental response. Her knowledge and
experience were critical in drafting legislation in response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the passing of the first Coast Guard
Authorization legislation to become law since 2006. These efforts
resulted in significant increases in the Coast Guard's Marine Safety
ranks; significant strides in enhancing the Coast Guard's ability to
manage complex major acquisitions; and a keen focus on enhancing the
diversity and Equal Employment Opportunities with the Coast Guard.
For the last four years Michael Herman has served as the Senior
Counsel for the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management, with a particular focus on emergency
management issues.
During this time, Mike has demonstrated an unmatched understanding of
the laws, programs and history of emergency management. Mike's mastery
of emergency management is reflected in H.R. 3377, the Disaster
Response, Recovery, and Mitigation Act of 2009.
When disasters strike, Members of the Committee and the House as a
whole, including the Speaker, rely on his knowledge, counsel, and
experience. After tornadoes devastated Wadena County in my district
this summer, Mike's unique knowledge and experience supported my work
with the affected communities. He also worked directly with local
officials helping them navigate the recovery process and understand the
assistance available to them.
For the past four years, Jim Kolb served as Staff Director for the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Jim's insight and guidance has
been invaluable to all Committee Members and staff on a surface
transportation issues.
During his service with the Committee, Jim played a key role in the
development of legislation to strengthen and improve the nation's
intermodal surface transportation network. Jim managed and led the
development of the Committee's comprehensive six-year authorization to
transform the Federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs, as
well as
[[Page 22486]]
the Committee's response to the I-35W Bridge collapse and efforts to
improve the safety and condition of the nation's highway bridges.
Throughout his service, Jim has been a hard-working, and dedicated
public servant, whose advice and counsel I have valued.
Amy Scarton, Counsel to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
first joined the Committee staff as a legal intern after graduating
from Duke University School of Law nearly a decade ago. Though she left
us to work for Congressman Earl Blumenauer during the 108th Congress,
and then to serve as Chief of Staff to Commissioner Frank Mulvey at the
Surface Transportation Board; Amy returned to the Committee in early
2007.
In her role as the lead transit attorney for the Committee, Amy has
been instrumental in developing major aspects of my surface
transportation reauthorization bill, as well as several other energy
and transit bills. Amy's dedication to progressive transportation
policies is not only evident in her hard work; she and her husband bike
daily to Capitol Hill from their home in Northwest D.C. I will greatly
miss Amy's enthusiasm, loyalty, and expertise, and I thank her for her
service.
In his two years as Director of Highway Policy for the Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, Todd Kohr has proven himself to be an
extremely capable, dedicated, and effective member of the
Subcommittee's staff.
Todd joined the staff of the Subcommittee at a pivotal moment for the
U.S. transportation system: during the development of my six-year bill
to authorize and fundamentally transform the Federal highway and
transit programs. Within this process, he drafted the majority of the
bill's $337 billion highway title--displaying an ability to advance my
priorities amidst a landscape of transportation policy issues,
procedural considerations, competing interest group dynamics, and the
complexities of Federal highway law.
In addition to his work on the authorization bill, Todd has acted as
the Subcommittee staff lead on a broad portfolio of highway-related
issues. His expertise, his attention to detail, his discretion, and his
counsel have served me and the Subcommittee well.
Jackie Schmitz, Professional Staff with the Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit, has served on my Committee staff for five and a half
years. Her dedication to public service and commitment to sound
transportation policy have made her an asset to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Jackie's work has focused on promoting bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, improving highway safety, and advancing transportation
research and technology. She has assisted the Members of this body in
addressing the needs of their communities and has made significant
contributions to the Committee's improved standards of ethics and
transparency.
I am particularly proud of the work Jackie has done to advance the
Safe Routes to School program, which is leaving a legacy of safety and
wellness for the next generation. Her hard work is driven by her
recognition that all Americans deserve transportation choices that are
safe, reliable, and accessible, and I am grateful for her service to
the Committee.
Peter Gould, Legislative Assistant for the Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit, has served the Committee for the past four years with a
high level of professionalism, dedication to serving the public, and a
good-natured sense of humor.
For the past two years Peter has helped me craft the Committee's
message through speeches, op-eds, and floor statements, making the case
for greater investment in the nation's surface transportation
infrastructure as part of the transformational Surface Transportation
Authorization Act. As my colleagues and I pressed for this
transformational legislation, I was always confident of Peter's
messaging and political acumen on presenting this issue to the American
public.
Jennifer Esposito has been a key staff member of the Committee since
June 2004. As Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Jennifer led the Committee's
efforts to enact historic legislation to reauthorize Amtrak and the
Federal Railroad Administration's rail safety program, and to develop
legislation to address rail security concerns in the wake of the
September 11, 2001 attacks. She also led the Committee's efforts to
enact the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, which
created new grant programs for development of high-speed and intercity
passenger rail in the United States.
Jennifer also has developed legislation to reauthorize the Department
of Transportation's pipeline and hazardous materials safety programs,
and conducted extensive oversight investigations of the programs which
led to major changes within the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. Most recently, she conducted an oversight investigation
of an Enbridge pipeline rupture in Marshall, Michigan, which unveiled
major safety deficiencies.
Rachel Carr has been a staff member on the Committee on
Transportation twice over the past ten years. She first served as Staff
Assistant for the Subcommittees on Aviation and Railroads from March
2000 to May 2002, while earning her law degree at night. After
graduating with honors from the American University Washington College
of Law, Ms. Carr continued her legal career in transportation, then
rejoined the Committee in March, 2009, as Counsel on the Subcommittee
on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.
In her current role, Ms. Carr has been involved with drafting
legislation to reauthorize the Department of Transportation's hazardous
materials safety program and has been an integral part in oversight of
the DOT's implementation of the high-speed and intercity passenger rail
and pipeline safety programs
Joseph E. Connelly is another member of my staff serving with the
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. Though
Joe has been with the staff a very short time, having served a little
less than two years as Professional Staff and a Fellow from the Federal
Railroad Administration, he has helped instill a culture of safety into
all of the federal agencies and entities under the jurisdiction of the
Committee.
Joe has contributed to the Committee by painstakingly conducting
concise, thorough investigations, analyzing complex data and reducing
that data into easily definable terms. The results of these
investigations helped transform the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration into a science-based, data-driven Agency. For
over 30 years, Joe Connelly has proudly served the American people as a
member of the legislative and executive branch. He has made safety his
life's work and has contributed immeasurably to the safe transportation
of hazardous materials throughout the United States.
I would like to recognize Ryan C. Seiger for his 12 years of service
to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the last 4 of
which he served as Staff Director and Senior Counsel. Ryan has been a
thoughtful and dedicated advocate for improving the overall
environmental health of the nation for future generations and for
taking the steps necessary to achieve the Clean Water Act's goals of
``fishable and swimmable'' waters. He has a deep understanding of the
challenges that remain in protecting the Nation's waters, and has
served this country well in exploring innovative ways to overcome these
challenges.
I also want to express my gratitude for his encyclopedic knowledge of
water resource law, which served us so well in his role as lead House
negotiator on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Thanks to
his work and the work of the rest of the Subcommittee staff, Congress
was able to achieve what was only the 107th successful override of a
Presidential veto in the history of the nation.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Navis Bermudez for her
service as Professional Staff to the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment. Despite the fact that she has only been with the
Subcommittee for the past year, her service to the Committee and to the
Congress has been exemplary. During this year, Navis helped the
Committee develop and move legislation (H.R. 3534) to address many of
the legal shortcomings of the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act
that were exposed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. Navis
has also been integral in Congressional efforts to reauthorize and
strengthen several of the Environmental Protection Agency's targeted
watershed programs, including House passage of legislation to
reauthorize the National Estuaries Program (H.R. 4715), and efforts to
reauthorize EPA's Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay program offices.
Navis has proven to be a strong advocate for protecting the nation's
water-related environment, and has performed her job with
professionalism and competence.
Madam Speaker, the people I have mentioned here are part of the
Committee's professional staff. There are many others who perform
administrative duties that are equally important to the work done by
the Committee. I intend to recognize their contribution in a subsequent
statement.
[[Page 22487]]
____________________
HONORING PRIVATE FIRST CLASS AUSTIN G. STAGGS
______
HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I come
before the U.S. House of Representatives tonight to celebrate the life
of Private First Class Austin G. Staggs. PFC Staggs answered his
nation's call of duty in 2009 after graduating from North Hills Private
School in Millsap, Texas near his hometown of Weatherford, Texas. On
November 29, 2010 Austin made the ultimate sacrifice while serving his
country and fellow servicemen in the Nangarhar Province of Afghanistan.
Private First Class Staggs was deployed to Afghanistan as part of
101st Airborne Division based in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He left
behind his mother and father, two brothers, two sisters, his wife
Sheena Staggs and his son Kallen Staggs. His father Byram Staggs of
Senoia, Georgia recalls how adamant he had been about joining the U.S.
Army. It had always been his dream he says.
His family also recalled a loving young man who was adored by his
siblings. His father said, ``He was the most big-hearted kid you've
ever met.'' His stepmother Kelly smiles when she talks about his Skype
video calls to their house from Afghanistan. She said he was adored by
his nieces and nephews so much that they would push each other out of
the way to see him when he called. PFC Staggs' mother, Kaye missed his
last call during the Thanksgiving holidays, but his grandmother said
she saved his last voicemail so that she can listen to him say ``I love
you'' any time she wants.
Like any soldier PFC Staggs received great satisfaction from the job
that he and all fellow U.S. servicemen were doing in Afghanistan. He
served his country bravely and took pride in the fact that the work he
was doing everyday was touching millions of lives both at home and
abroad.
It pains me that fine young men such as PFC Staggs have been killed
protecting the freedom of this great country. I know that no words can
lessen the sorrow that Austin's family feels, but I am proud to salute
such a fine son, brother, husband and father.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, December 15, 2010, I was
unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote on H. Res. 1761, a
resolution congratulating Auburn University quarterback Cameron Newton
on winning the 2010 Heisman Trophy as the most outstanding college
football player in the United States.
As an original cosponsor of this legislation, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 1761.
____________________
SENATOR PAUL SIMON WATER FOR THE WORLD ACT OF 2009
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight, as I have the previous
two nights, in order to prod this body to act to save lives before it
is too late. It is simply unconscionable that 4,100 children die every
day from diarrheal diseases spread through poor sanitation and hygiene.
The mortality rate for children killed by waterborne diseases is six
times as large as the number of children killed by HIV/AIDS and four
times as many as killed by malaria.
Melanie Nakagawa of the National Resources Defense Council has called
the international water and sanitation crisis ``the most poorly
addressed environmental problem of our day.'' Indeed, nearly one
billion people lack safe drinking water. According to the World Health
Organization, two and a half billion people lack sufficient water
sanitation facilities.
Many of us have seen the impacts of this ongoing tragedy first-hand--
from the United States, to Africa, to Haiti, where people are dying
every day from cholera because of a lack of access to clean water and
sanitation facilities.
The gap between access to safe drinking water and proper sanitation
is widening between those living in poverty and the wealthy. The former
South African president, Nelson Mandela, challenged global leaders to
make access to clean water a basic human right and to put water and
sanitation much higher up on the political, economic and social
agendas. ``The absence of access to clean water'' he stated ``is most
stark in the widespread impoverishment of the natural environment.''
The U.N. agreed with Mandela at the Earth Summit, noting that water
is the greatest obstacle to sustainable development and the most
visible symbol of the growing gap between the rich and the poor. As the
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, ``No issue has ever been more neglected
than water and sanitation. And it is neglected because it is of concern
mainly to the poor and powerless.''
Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, stated that
``access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a fundamental human
need and therefore, a basic human right.''
We have legislation before Congress that will address these
inequities and demonstrate our government's commitment to the
fundamental human right of safe and clean water. H.R. 2030, the Senator
Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, would give the U.S.
government the tools to provide 100 million people with first-time
access to clean water and sanitation.
The Senate, which has been repeatedly criticized for not addressing
the hundreds of bills passed by this body during the 111th Congress,
has already approved the companion to H.R. 2030. And the Senate passed
that legislation on September 20, 2010 by unanimous consent.
Despite the occasional partisan differences here in Washington DC,
this critical issue has support on both sides of the aisle. There are
ten Republican cosponsors of the House bill and eight Republican
cosponsors of the Senate bill.
Water for the World is also supported by a broad spectrum of
advocates, including Water Advocates, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, ONE, Mercy Corps, International Housing Coalition, CARE, and
Population Services International, Millennium Water Alliance, Living
Water International and Religious Water Working Group.
We are down to the wire and the time to act is now. If the 111th
Congress expires without a vote on the House floor, millions of people
will have to unnecessarily wait for clean water. And many lives will be
unnecessarily lost. While many Americans take water for granted, one-
sixth of the world's population, almost a billion people, do not have
access to safe drinking water. The Water for the World Act is an
important start to addressing this problem. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation before it is too late.